Brian Murphy – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Worcester criminal defense attorney Brian Murphy has been nominated to replace Judge Patti Saris on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Background

Born in 1979 in Columbia, Maryland, Murphy received a B.A. from The College of Holy Cross in 2002, and then obtained a J.D. from Columbia Law School in 2006. Murphy then spent three years as a public defender at the Committee for Public Counsel Services and then joined Todd and Weld LLP in Boston.

Murphy joined Murphy & Rudolph LLP in 2011 and currently works as a Partner there.

History of the Seat

Murphy has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, replacing Judge Patti Saris, who will take senior status upon the confirmation of a successor.

Legal Career

Murphy started his legal career as a public defender before shifting to the Boston firm Todd & Weld. While at the firm, Murphy represented defendants charged in a 67 count tax conspiracy. See United States v. Pingaro, 784 F. Supp. 2d 77 (D. Mass. 2011).

Murphy has spent the largest portion of his legal career at Murphy & Rudolph, representing criminal defendants in Worcester, Massachusetts. For example, Murphy petitioned the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to order that a transcript of grand jury instructions be produced for his client’s indictments. Robin v. Commonwealth, 480 Mass. 1025 (2018). In other cases, Murphy has represented defendants charged with selling cocaine, fentanyl and heroin in the Worcester area. See United States v. Cruz, 365 F. Supp. 3d 222 (D. Mass. 2019); United States v. Robles, 464 F. Supp. 3d 422 (D. Mass. 2020).

On the civil side, Murphy represented the Blackstone Headwaters Coalition in a suit alleging that the defendants were violating the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. See Blackstone Headwaters Coalition, Inc. v. Gallo Builders, Inc. et al., 410 F. Supp. 3d 299 (D. Mass. 2019). The suit was ultimately dismissed via summary judgment. See id.

Overall Assessment

Democrats are facing an increasingly tightening window for judicial confirmations before the end of the year. However, there is little in Murphy’s background that should cause him too much trouble in the confirmation process.

131 Comments

  3. Frank's avatar

    Unlike Harsh, I suspect that with this being in an election year and Murphy having a background representing defendants, this will be an extremely tight vote if there is even one at all. Republicans will likely find a series of cases which Murphy was representing his clients and use them to claim he isn’t tough enough on crime. The key will be how he handles such attacks so that at least one of the moderate Republicans or all non-Manchin Democrats support him.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. rob's avatar

    I don’t know if anyone saw but the senate passed on Saturday Senators Cruz and Hirono’s bill to make the temporary judges permanent by UC.

    I always thought it would have been harder to pass in the senate so this is a good sign that it will be law by the end of the year. Fixes a small but important problem.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. keystone's avatar

    Former Hillsborough State Attorney Andrew Warren announced he’s running for re-election. DeSantis controversially removed Warren from his post after stating he wouldn’t prosecute women or doctors who violated the 15-week abortion ban.

    It never would have happened, but part of me would of loved to see Warren nominated for that 11th Circuit seat bc he’s great and bc I would have loved to see the GOP senators shooting off anti-abortion soundbites in an election year.

    Here’s hoping he can win.

    https://www.fox13news.com/news/ousted-hillsborough-state-attorney-andrew-warren-to-seek-re-election

    Liked by 2 people

      • keystone's avatar

        Sorry, what am I missing. That article is kind weak sauce, non? There was no meant or explanation at all. All I got from it was that a nominee appointed by a Democratic President spoke with someone who was left leaning. Someone get the Pulitzer Prize people on the phone.

        Also, he was the head of the Hispanic Bar Association. If he signed off on her, that makes me feel a bit better about Sooknanan involvement w Puerto Rico, so thank you, Carrie, for helping to get me over that hump.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Frank

      Haaaaaa… Thanks for the article. I wasn’t exactly jumping for joy over the Sooknanan nomination but after reading this, she just moved up in my book. Let me know if her car runs out of gas. I’ll be happy to carry her to the courthouse after she is confirmed so she doesn’t miss a day… Lol

      Like

  15. Aiden's avatar

    Talking about Nicole Berner.

    Another Rehearing Poll has come out of the 4th circuit.

    Again Heytens has joined with conservatives. Berner and Benjamin both dissented with 4 other liberal judges.

    There has being quite a few liberal opinions from Heytens. However this is like the 4th en banc poll that he has joined with conservatives.
    Still an overall good pick from Biden, but not as good as the others

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      I still think Heytens will turn out liberal overall. Benjamin has surpassed all of my expectations. And I would bet my last dollar Berner will turn out liberal. I am gonna go out on a limb & say whoever is the NC nominee will end up being the least progressive of the Biden 4th judges when we look at their records in a decade or so.

      Like

  17. Gavi's avatar

    We’ve spoken about this very many times. Unless you’re on CA5, it’s rare to vote for en banc review. Though more and more judges are voting to rehear cases en banc, such a vote is still disfavored. It’s one thing to think that a panel got it wrong, it’s a another thing to think that the ruling is so egregious that it requires circuit-wide correction.

    Remember, in theory, circuit panels ~have to follow circuit precedents. We know in practice, some panels go against established precedents. One purpose of en banc review is to bring a panel’s ruling back in line with the law of the circuit. Another purpose is to establish a circuit-wide precedent were one didn’t exist, mostly in cases of first impression. Either way, judges of many stripes used to not be in a hurry to take this otherwise extraordinary step. I’m not familiar with this case in question, but I suspect Heytens is one of those judges who’d rather live with a panel decision with which he disagrees than voting to rehear en banc.

    Speaking of extraordinary steps, we should get really worried when more and more circuits follow CA5 and go en banc sua sponte, meaning that the judges themselves decide to reach out and take cases en banc *without* a petition to do so.

    Liked by 3 people

  18. tsb1991's avatar

    Schumer mentioned in his pre-vote speech that they will have the Monday off and the first vote of next week will be 5:30PM on Tuesday, so at this point we await the cloture motions to be filed after the supplemental passes…

    Like

  20. tsb1991's avatar

    Schumer wrapped up. Cloture filed on Alexakis and the FAA reauthorization, which I know has been something talked about for a while, so I guess that’s what’s set for next week.

    Now we’ll see if any nominations are announced tomorrow…

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Jesus, we finish the budget bills & then we have the aid packages. We finally finish those & now we have the FAA reauthorization. Does anybody know what else is left for the senate to vote on before the summer recess after the FAA vote besides nominations? It seems like it’s never ending.

      Like

      • tsb1991's avatar

        The Wednesday schedule next week will likely be to confirm Alexakis and then cloture on the motion to proceed to the FAA bill at 11:30AM. Without a time agreement the expiration of the 30 postcloture hours (assuming a 1 hour-long vote after the Alexakis vote concludes probably around 12:30PM) would be around 7:30PM Thursday, so the remainder of Wednesday would probably be quiet. Unless they’re planning their next marathon Thursday night/Friday session to get this done?

        I think we’ve had four or so overtime sessions so far this year, the first one being the first supplemental the Senate passed, the two for the two minibuses, and then the FISA/supplemental passages. Probably more of those than what the Senate had all of last year combined lol

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        And just as important as those marathon sessions, the senate has only cancelled one day from their normal return from recess so far if you count next Monday. I remember when they stayed in session & spent one extra day trying to pass the civil rights bills (I believe in 2022), they ended up taking the entire next week they were supposed to be in session off. So we basically swapped one day, in which nothing passes because Sinema & Manchin blocked ending the filibuster, in exchange for another week off. It was horrible.

        Like

    • keystone's avatar

      I think it’s a strategic move. If Schumer filed cloture on one of the Circuit nominees, I guarantee you’d see a 7 day non stop pile on by the right wing attacking him/her to try and peel off votes.

      Alexakis is non controversial and got both Graham and Tillis’ votes in committee. Plus her vote will give Schumer a way to assess attendance.

      If he files a controversial circuit nom during the week, it only gives the right wing 2 days to try and go after them.

      Liked by 4 people

  22. Zack's avatar

    I got wordpressed earlier in the day so I wanted to add a couple of thoughts.
    What I meant to say in regards to Sparkle Sooknanan is that anything coming from the National Review is going to be garbage and should be ignored (though as we’ve seen it hasn’t been by some senators.)
    As to some en banc rulings we’ve seen, I think some Democratic judges are making a hard call that they don’t want some cases getting to SCOTUS right now.
    It sucks we’re in that position but it sadly is what it is.
    As for Alexakis’s nomination moving through, it helps that the judiciary committee chair is from her state and that Durbin also wants to nullify any chance of another judicial emergency from his state in the bud by ensuring Alexakis can hit the ground running.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. Zack's avatar

    @Dequan, I’ll write to Webster’s and see what they can do.
    One more thing with Sparkle Sooknanan, the person attacking her is the same person leading the charge against Mangi’s nomination among others and is in charge of a group to put far right nominees on the court.
    Her whining about someone talking to a known liberal lawyer given that is utterly laughable but as we’ve seen, conservatives have no shame about being hypocrites.
    Also, hope we get some nominees, especially for Circuit court seats and district court seats in CA, they need to be filled badly.

    Liked by 1 person

    • tsb1991's avatar

      Every current/future CDCA vacancy would replace a GWB appointee, right? I know one of them is that racist judge but not sure where the other ones are ideologically, I’m sure some deal was broken out between Bush and Feinstein/Boxer for those seats (looks like Bush had 14 total appointments to that court by my count).

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Correct, all four pending vacancies on the CDCA are GW Bush appointees. There are six more judges that can retire today & four of them are also GW Bush appointees. The other two are Reagan & Clinton so this court could really be transformed in a second Bidne term.

        Like

      • Ryan J's avatar

        I don’t have much information about the other 3 who are vacating.

        I have more information about the 6 judges who are 75+ and NOT vacating. 4 of them are controversial.

        -Stephen Victor Wilson (Reagan appointee) sentenced Sherman Austin, an anti-police webmaster who was convicted for other people’s activity on his website.
        -David O. Carter (Clinton appointee) has ruled for the homeless in numerous cases and ruled against John Eastman, but apparently Carter duct taped the mouth of a criminal defendant as a OC Superior Court judge in 1983.
        -Percy Anderson (GW Bush appointee) can take years to rule on a habeas case.
        -Otis Wright (GW Bush) allegedly swung around a baseball bat during a hearing*

        About the other 2, Klausner (GW Bush) seems to be conservative, while John Walter presided over Kobe Bryant’s wrongful death suit.

        *A claim made in the Robing Room, which seems to hate the judges of CDCA. The Robing Room has also criticized Manuel Real (a journalist claims he threatened to hold her in contempt), William Duffy Keller, Philip Gutierrez (someone claims he just tries to get rid of cases). No idea on how credible these claims are, so take this with a grain of salt absent further clues.

        Liked by 1 person

  24. raylodato's avatar

    Well, this is interesting:

    https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2024/04/23/april-perry-us-attorney-stalled-bid-jd-vance-joe-biden?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=04242024%20April%20Perry%20bid%20ends&utm_content=04242024%20April%20Perry%20bid%20ends+CID_11bc6743b50e5e1cbd1ec26b433903b3&utm_source=cst_campaign_monitor&utm_term=April%20Perrys%20bid%20to%20be%20citys%20first%20female%20top%20federal%20prosecutor%20to%20end%20Biden%20will%20tap%20her%20to%20be%20federal%20judge&tpcc=04242024%20April%20Perry%20bid%20ends

    Liked by 1 person

  26. keystone's avatar

    Danna Jackson, the Montana nominee, is the Tribal Attorney for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and was previously the Tribal Liaison in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Wondering if there’s a political impact if Tester is championing a Native candidate and the GOP is openly trying to tear her down.

    Also, interesting that we got a nom for the Maine district seat but not the Circuit seat. We’ve been talking a lot about the US Attorney being the obvious name for the circuit seat and have commented on the fact that her vetting process would be relatively quick. I think it’s @Gavi who always says that when the obvious candidates take a while, it’s a sign that they prob aren’t the pick. Wondering if that is happening here.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. tsb1991's avatar

    Looking out into June now, possible hearing windows are 6/5 and 6/12. Nominees for a 6/5 hearing would be needed by 5/8 (two weeks from now), and a 6/12 hearing would need nominees by 5/15 (three weeks).

    If they are to have a 6/5 hearing two weeks from then that opens the possibility of having a hearing window two weeks from then. That would be the week of Juneteenth, which falls on a Wednesday. The Senate has that day off but if we could have another hearing on a Thursday, the hearing could be held 6/20 (and would need nominees by 5/23).

    A possible 6/20 meeting shouldn’t interfere with any committee votes, if all of today’s nominees had a hearing on 5/22 their committee vote would be 6/13 (the 6/6 meeting to hold them over). If a 6/5 hearing was held (for either new nominees or any nominees today being spilled over into that meeting) their holdover meeting would likely be 6/20 and no votes would needed to be held.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Dequan's avatar

    What a nice way to wake up. A new batch that we didn’t have to wait until 5pm for with SEVEN nominees. I almost dropped my phone when I saw one from Montana. And she seems to be Indian which is sorely needed on the federal bench.

    The Maine nominee seems to be solid for a purple state. I’m happy we got the district court nominee before the circuit court nominee similar to what we saw from Florida in the last batch. The reverse was done in Kansas, Texas & Indiana & we still have district court vacancies in all three states. I won’t put Tennessee in that category because the dynamics are different with the Gibbons seat.

    I initially thought we got another lackluster SDNY nominee but after conferring with @Ethan & his list, she seems better than I initially thought. She was a board member of The Fortune Society, which helps the formerly incarcerated.

    I’m happy to see 3 of the 4 CDCA vacancies get nominees. I’m still holding out for Bryant Yang for the finally vacancy but with the ages of the judges on the court, I expect additional vacancies. 2 of the 3 are in their 50’s but all three seem to have solid progressive backgrounds. I’m happy to see one from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

    Finally I am surprised neither of the top two of the five remaining recommendations were chosen for the NDIL. I am happy Schumer didn’t want to waste floor time to confirm a US attorney that can be dismissed in 9 months if there is a change in administration.

    All in all a good batch. Having seven nominees is exactly what was needed. One of the seven won’t be sent to the senate until Maldonado is confirmed. Two of the remaining six will need a Republican blue slip turned in. So between the remaining four, we can have a full batch pending what’s going on with the nominees for the SDFL & SDCA that have yet to have a hearing.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. Hank's avatar

    April Perry’s a pretty lackluster pick given that there were much better options on the NDIL list the Illinois senators forwarded – with the exception of Maldonado and Cummings, Biden’s NDIL nominees are all boring ex-prosecutor types that you’d expect from red or purple states, not a deep blue state like Illinois.

    And I get that Alexakis is probably easier to confirm, but it’s silly to prioritize her when she literally can’t even take the bench until Pallmeyer goes senior in August.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Frank's avatar

      It isn’t silly to prioritize a judicial emergency, which is the case in NDIL, so that there isn’t any type of gap between when Pallmeyer leaves and Alexakis takes the bench. Why do people complain here when judges get confirmed?

      I do agree that it would’ve been nice to see a more diverse pick for the seat Perry was nominated for but considering it is so close to the election it isn’t surprising that Biden is looking for nominees who are more likely to get some Republican votes.

      Liked by 1 person

  33. Gavi's avatar

    1 – Daines is a NO on Jackson, claiming Biden did not consult him (I called his staff myself and had his statement read to me).

    I hope Tester plans to use this nomination to get more support from Montana’s native American voters.

    2 – Very glad we got the D-ME nominee first, and not the other way around. I would be shocked if the circuit court nominee is anything other than a boring conventional candidate. Now that that’s out the way, I hope we’re only a couple batches away from knowing who that nominee is.

    3 – I am glad the CA senators are trying to fill the never ending vacancies on their courts, especially the CDCA.

    4 – Any guess as to whose recommendation Sarah Netburn is for the SDNY? Odds are she’s Schumer’s. I could see Republicans trying to make something out of her recommendation to reject using frozen Afghan funds for 9/11 families.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I just read Daines statement. @John Doe interestingly said this could possibly be the end of blue slips in his tweet. As much as I have advised for that, I’m not sure what he is basing his opinion on. Particularly in an election year.

      @Gavi

      Absolutely regarding filling the Maine district court seat before the circuit court seat should be the standard for any red & purple state with vacancies for both. As for Netburn, I would guess she was a Schumer pick. Gillibrand picked the last nominee & she gets 1 out of every 4 picks.

      Like

      • Gavi's avatar

        John Doe is being his usual ridiculous self. Why would Dems NOW ditch blue slip, with only 8 months left in this congress?

        Yeah, I think Netburn is Schumer’s, but not for the reason you stated. We know they have a 4:1 ratio, but we don’t know exactly when that breakdown happens. Remember that nominees aren’t necessarily processed and announced in the order that they are recommended. So it’s difficult to keep track of Schumer’s 4 to Gillibrand’s 1.

        From what I remember, Schumer gives his staff major Jewish holidays off. Today’s the second day of Passover and there’s no statement forthcoming as yet. That’s what I base my guess on.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Gavi's avatar

        @Frank
        You mean the filibuster. And even so, that was more than a year out vs only 8 months, yes, this is a major difference, especially since congress only lasts for 2 years.
        Also, getting rid of the blue slip would be a bigger deal than gutting the fillibuster. You need a concerted effort to filibuster, whereas only a single senator can blue slip a nominee. So I don’t think the 2013 example is a fair comparison.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Everybody knows I’m probably one of the biggest proponents of getting rid of blue slips. Getting rid of them when I first called for it made plenty of sense. Now not so much. We could have a new president and/or senate majority in less time than it takes for a woman to get pregnant & have a baby.

        And that’s not even bringing in to play the now Manchin statement of not supporting party line votes. Democrats need to focus on the remaining 15 vacancies that don’t require a Republican blue slip, which would fill three hearing slots. They can try to squeeze another five or so out of Florida & North Carolina’s six vacancies since both have circuit court vacancies as well.

        Now if they can find a way to get five more purple & red state nominees to fill a fifth hearing slot that would be icing on the cake. I would start the list with EDWI since we already have recommendations but Johnson is probably being Johnson. Then Alaska since we have 4 recommendations but Sullivan is starting his own commission. Outside of that, maybe Indiana, Louisiana & Kansas. Outside of that we would need a surprise for sure. I just don’t see Arkansas, Alabama or Missouri happening this year.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Frank

        Uuummm no buddy. It was Republicans, NOT Democrats that got rid of blue slips for circuit court nominees. And yes Republicans got rid of them a year before the midterms. The midterms happen every 2 years so that will always be the case. They didn’t however get rid of them 7 months before a presidential election, particularly one that polls show is a coin flip. That’s the scenario we are in now. And again I am one of the biggest proponents of getting rid of blue slips, just when it makes sense.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Joe's avatar

      Thanks Gavi.

      Regarding Jackson, I think you’re exactly right. Might be a political tactic to try and drum up more native support. Not a bad idea honestly.

      Id be willing to bet Daines has been completely uncooperative with the WH anyway and was probably told well ahead of time. In this case, I’m fine giving him the middle finger

      Liked by 3 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        I mentioned back during the Scott Colom debacle that judicial nomination sin red states with uncooperative senators should absolutely be used as political tools. Jackson today is a great example. I honestly wished they had handled the Scott Colom situation differently, albeit neither senator is in danger of losing their seat.

        But in states with winnable senate races, Biden should just nominate a historic pick & let the home state senator explain why they are blocking them. Even though Daines isn’t the senator running this year, Jackson should still be used to help Tester.

        Like

    • tsb1991's avatar

      I saw that at lunch, I’d doubt Daines comes around to supporting Jackson. He said the exact same things during Johnstone’s nominations about how all of the Montana federal judges are activists. Every Obama appointee on the Montana district court would have come with A) A Democratic-controlled Senate and B) Montana having two Democratic Senators, Baucus and Tester, during the six years that he had a Democratic Senate. From what I understand Tester and Daines have always had a frosty relationship so I can see that playing out here too. People talk about Tuberville and Hawley being lost causes but Daines sounds like someone who would also only sign off on a Federalist Society hack.

      Speaking of statements from Senators, have we not gotten anything from Scott or Rubio about Shaw-Wilder?

      Liked by 2 people

      • Ryan J's avatar

        I was a bit surprised at Daines announcing his opposition so soon, because Biden typically doesn’t nominate people who have clear opposition from a senator. Ron Johnson & Cindy Hyde-Smith didn’t announce their opposition until later. Perhaps Daines’s statement that he “could come around to supporting” and purporting to be undecided is his way of pulling a Ron Johnson.

        Liked by 1 person

  35. Zack's avatar

    I sadly suspect the MT seat will still be open by the end of the year but would love to be proven wrong.
    As for the nominees overall, can’t complain.
    Would have preferred someone other then April Perry but I get why’s the nominee for the seat.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      Another thing about the Montana seat… Dana Christensen announced in December 2022 that he would take senior status upon confirmation of a successor. So far, he has been patient as Daines has dragged out the process. I think the one way Daines might support Jackson is if Christensen (who is currently 72 or 73) threatens to rescind his retirement if Trump wins and he still doesn’t have a successor.

      Liked by 1 person

  36. keystone's avatar

    Anyone good with LA geography. Of the 4 current CDCA vacancies, 3 are based in LA and 1 is based in Santa Ana (aka Orange County). Are the 3 CDCA noms today all LA based? Just trying to figure out who’s still in the pool for the 4th seat.

    Liked by 2 people

      • Ryan J's avatar

        I hope that Biden names a nominee for Carney’s seat on June 1st (June 5th is the first Wednesday in June so that would be the earliest realistic date). The OC division is currently 2D, 2R but one of the D’s is 80-year-old David Carter. If Biden screw up Carney’s seat and something happens to Carter, the OC division could become a FedSoc stronghold.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Not that I expect this White House to do it, but there is a strategic way they could handle the four CDCA vacancies. They could nominate all 3 of today’s nominees to the Wu, Fischer & Carney seat. That way when May 31st rolls around, whoever is nominated to the Carney seat can get their commission once confirmed. Then when Gutierrez retires October 15th, just nominate a Santa Ana nominee for his Los Angeles seat & they should be confirmed by the time he leaves in October.

        But I fully expect them to nominate all three of today’s nominees to on the three Los Angeles seats. That means one of them will have to wait for October 15th to get their commission despite another seat on the same court being vacancy starting at the end of this month. If so, I at least hope they nominate the youngest of the three nominees today to the Gutierrez seat so they commission her in order of age. The youngest would be Anne Hwang.

        Liked by 1 person

  37. Dequan's avatar

    Here are my initial grades for todays nominees;

    Michelle Williams Court – The ONLY negative thing I can say about her is she is 57. Besides that she is SOLID. Her background including the ACLU & providing legal services to the poor & disadvantaged makes it a shame she wasn’t an Obama nominee while she was still in her 40’s instead of a Jerry Brown lower court appointee… A

    Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon – I’m really happy they nominated an attorney from MALDEF. That should make Sanez happy. She also worked as the Criminal Justice Act supervising attorney so she had a solid progressive background. I can only take points off for her being in her mid 50’s but other than that she’s solid… A

    Anne Hwang – Another Jerry Brown judge appointed at a young age. She is a long time public defender & 47… A

    Sarah Netburn – She’s a board member of The Fortune Society that helps the formerly incarcerated. There were still many other options that were younger for this seat so I have to take some off my grade for that… B+

    Stacey Neumann – She spent two years working in the Vermont office of the defender general so that’s good, albeit a short stint. She’s in her mid 40’s so a really good nominee for a purple state… A

    April Perry – There were no is than two better options on the list of five remaining recommendations. I understand the politics of nominating her with Vance’s US Attorney blockade but there really were better options here… C+

    Danna Jackson – Native Americans are sorely underrepresented on the federal bench. Sadly I don’t see that changing this year but hopefully after the election, Jackson can get confirmed if Biden wins & Dems hold on to the senate. Her environment background is another sorely underrepresented area on the federal bench. I’ll only take a little off my grade for her being in her mid 50’s but for a purple state that’s fine… A

    Liked by 2 people

  38. keystone's avatar

    So, if I’m doing this right, the remaining blue state spots that need noms are….

    CA – 3 (maybe 4 depending on what happens w/ Kanter)

    PA – 3

    NY – 2

    AZ – 1

    IL – 1

    MD – 1

    MN – 1

    VT – 1

    and 4 Circuit Seats (ME, NC, TN, FL)

    It’s really not that many. But Casey and Fetterman need to get moving.

    Liked by 4 people

  39. Ethan's avatar

    For the Orange County seat, I’m worried we may end up with Magistrate Judge Autumn Spaeth (born c. 1974). Her one donation ever has been to a Democrat but otherwise she’s very bland.

    I’d prefer one of the following two Orange County Superior Court judges:

    • Elizabeth Macias (born c. 1973): A former federal defender.
    • Vibhav Mittal (born c. 1982): A former AUSA who was also a former DCCC organizer.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. Mitch's avatar

    Big day at SCOTUS. The Presidential immunity claim is being heard. Samuel Alito asked a Justice Department lawyer, ” Won’t The Fear Of Being Prosecuted By A Political Opponent Lead Us Into A Cycle That Destabilizes Democracy?”

    Brett Kavanaugh asked if President Obama could be prosecuted for using drones to assassinate civilians?

    Sonia Sotomayor had a very pointed question to the Trump lawyers.

    Here’s a link if you want to hear the questions.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/04/25/justice_alito_wont_the_fear_of_being_prosecuted_by_a_political_opponent_lead_us_into_a_cycle_that_destabilizes_democracy.html

    Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Bryant Yang is my number one pick for any California seat, district or circuit court as well. He has ties to San Diego despite being a current Los Angeles judge so I wouldn’t mind seeing him be nominated to the vacant SDCA seat. And let’s be honest, the Katner nomination is dead so there are really two vacancies on that court. Let’s hope Biden withdraws her sooner rather than later.

        Like

    • Gavi's avatar

      Poor ABA rating.

      At this point, this has probably killed Biden’s judicial nominations at the same rate (or more) as blue slip issues.

      Biden/Durbin has basically reinstated Dems’ reliance on the ABA, if only after the fact, which amounts to the same effect. Republicans don’t give a damn. Sad.

      Liked by 2 people

  43. Joe's avatar

    Thanks Gavi. That’s frustrating. I’m a little puzzled why hers is low given that she seems conventionally well qualified for the role. 16 years as an AUSA and 1+ year as a sitting judge. What am I missing?

    Liked by 1 person

  44. Joe's avatar

    Fair enough, that’s a good point.

    Thankfully, I do think Padilla and Butler are pretty good at judges and have robust systems in place to recommend them more nominees. Should be enough time to get another good nominee through the process for that seat.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. Jamie's avatar

    Many here have discussed what a disaster it was that RBG didn’t retire in 2013 or 2014 (which I obviously agree with). But I’m curious whom you think Obama would have nominated to replace her and if the GOP would have tried to filibuster the replacement.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Jamie's avatar

        Yeah so most of those are not seriously going to be considered by Obama. It’ll have to be a sitting appellate judge, state Supreme Court judge, or maybe a politician. None of these academics will be nominated directly to SCOTUS. 

        Of your list, Nguyen and Halligan are the only ones who would be in play. One that comes to my mind is Judge Jane Kelly. If it is in 2014, it’s possible that Millett and Pillard are considered too. Older possibilities are Judge Kim Wardlaw and Leah Sears Ward. I doubt Obama would appoint a man, but Judge Sri Srinivasan could be an option. 

        As far as the filibuster, the filibuster reform that was passed by Democrats in late 2013 explicitly excluded SCOTUS. It was the GOP that killed that in 2017.

        Liked by 1 person

      • star0garnet's avatar

        I suspect an academic would have been strongly in play for a third Obama vacancy. If Bansal’s health check came back clear, she’d have been a very strong possibility.

        And your point on the filibuster is? SCOTUS was excluded in order to blunt any political repercussions for Dems. If a SCOTUS seat was actually in play and GOPers wouldn’t break a filibuster, it would have been gone earlier. It’s always been a political football, nothing more.

        Liked by 2 people

    • tsb1991's avatar

      I’ve always heard people arguing against Obama replacing Ginsburg mention that Republicans would have blocked her replacement from being confirmed, nevermind that Democrats had just blown up the filibuster for all of the other nominees. If Republicans did insist on 60, Democrats had 55 Senate seats, you’re telling me there wouldn’t be 5 Republicans to vote to confirm? If you start off with Graham, Collins, Murkowski, the other two I could picture in that Congress at a minimum would be Mark Kirk (from Illinois who held what was Obama’s Senate seat, while he was cooked in 2016 anyway when he lost to Duckworth, it’d be a bad look for him to vote against a SCOTUS nomination while representing the state and the Senate seat of the President), and maybe Dean Heller in Nevada (he had barely squeaked to re-election while Obama carried the state easily due to ethics issues of his Democratic opponent, he did try to carve himself out as a moderate early on until Trump, where he completely capitulated and suicided his career enthusiastically supporting him on things like Obamacare repeal).

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jamie's avatar

        It depends on whom the replacement is. Someone like Ngyuen or Kelly would get 60 votes for sure. Someone like Pam Karlan or another academic in that ballpark certainly would have no shot of getting 60. If Obama were to go with a politician, hard to say. Can’t see Kamala Harris (who was seriously mentioned as a RBG replacement by the legal media) for example getting 60, but Amy Klobuchar would. 

        Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I have said all along Judge Jane Kelly would have been Obama’s 2013 replacement pick for RBG. She would have started off with Grassley’s support. Her background is progressive but not scary enough to kill getting Republican support. Plus her personal story of surviving an attack that she was left for dead would have helped get her over the finish line.

      Another real possibility I could have seen was Sri Srinivasan. He could have garnered enough Republican votes from his unanimous vote a year or so earlier. Plus he would have been a history making pick.

      The third strongest possibility would have been Merrick Garland. Back then he was still considered left of center & the most qualified judge in the country not in the SCOTUS. He was the number one feeder judge of law clerks to the SCOTUS.

      Like

      • star0garnet's avatar

        If it happened in 2013, Kelly would likely have been seen as too new. In 2014, she might have been considered. If it had to be a sitting appellate judge, I’d guess it would have been Nguyen or Murguia. Operating under the assumption that Obama would not have nominated a man for the seat, there were simply very few appellate judges or state supreme court justices who were legitimate possibilities. One name that just came back to me is Monica Márquez.

        Liked by 1 person

  46. Jamie's avatar

    TBH, poor temperament should be outright disqualifying for a judge period. I don’t want a judge who has a history of being uncivil or intemperate, regardless of their qualifications and ideology. 

    Of course investigation on shoddy temperament should be thorough to make sure it isn’t one or two disgruntled individuals who make those charges. 

    Liked by 2 people

  47. Mitch's avatar

    Here’s what I heard about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s decision. She wanted to be replaced by the first woman President in American history, who she expected would be Hillary Clinton. Given her background, she thought it was fitting. 

    It never occurred to her that Donald Trump would be elected. Everyone was shocked when he won, no one more than Ginsburg. Than she stayed because she didn’t want him replacing her, but she couldn’t pull that off.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ads's avatar

      @Mitch, but going back to 2013/14 which is when RBG SHOULD have stepped down, Donald Trump was not yet even being thought about as a presidential candidate because he hadn’t announced…and as far as historical precedent goes, she had ALL THE INDICATIONS as to why not stepping down was unwise: (1) The Democrats had held the Senate for the first 6 years of President Obama’s 2 terms; recent history had suggested that it was VERY UNLIKELY that the Democrats would have held the Senate for all 8, and (2) it’s been exceedingly rare for any one party to win the White House for a 3rd consecutive term. Also, pancreatic cancer rarely has a lengthy prognosis. But RBG ignored all this because she was too in love with all her “Notorious RBG” press clippings…and here we are today because of her foolish self indulgence. Thanks RBG! :-/

      Liked by 4 people

      • Zack's avatar

        @ADs, yup, RBG put her ego above the greater good and we’re all paying for it.
        As to whom Obama could have nominated to replace her if had done the right thing, the reality is Republicans would have filibustered any nominee to that seat, all to ensure Obama couldn’t get a third nominee and lead to the outcome they have now with the seat being flipped.

        Liked by 3 people

    • Jamie's avatar

      Hmm I didn’t hear that. What RBG did say repeatedly was that she wanted to serve as long as her hero, Justice Brandeis, which was 23 years. She also suggested that Obama couldn’t get confirmed the kind of justice she wanted to replace her. Who knows what the real reason was.

      Liked by 1 person

  48. keystone's avatar

    The National Congress of Americans Indians (NCAI). the Native American Rights Fund (NARF), and National Native American Bar Association (NNABA) have all come out in support of Danna Jackson’s nomination to the Montana court. I def think the Biden admin is betting on either getting her confirms and/or boost Native vote in Montana to help Tester.

    I could see the Detra Shaw-Wilder nomination being in a similar situation, with an aim to try and boost black enthusiasm in Southern Florida.

    I realize that judicial pics aren’t going to make or break these races but if races are tight, a small uptick could help.

    That being said, I’m kind of wondering if we’re going to get a nomination for the NDOH and SDOH seats. Senator Brown set up an evaluation committee last year that had a 12/1 deadline. I wonder if there’s a judicial candidate for those seats that could juice voter enthusiasm in Cleveland and Columbus.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      This is exactly what I wrote during the Scott Colom nomination. If Durbin isn’t gonna change his position in blue slips & the Republican home state senators aren’t gonna work in good faith, you mine as well nominate somebody that will generate anger from their nomination getting blocked. The same thing should be done for the WDTN & Missouri seats as well. I’ll hold my opinion on North Carolina & Florida for now since both have circuit court vacancies.

      Like

  49. Rick's avatar

    I was wondering for the Menendez trial, if the trial has off days, would he come to Washington for any senate business?. The Trump trial is not in session every week day, perhaps the Menendez trial will be same way. Or do you think he stays out of Washington until trial is complete whether there are off days or not?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Mitch,

      I think you are asking the wrong question. People like me advocated getting rid of blue slips earlier in Biden’s term. So the answer to THAT question would be there would be very few district court seats left for Trump to fill in your scenario.

      Now it doesn’t make sense to get rid of blue slips unless Biden wins, senate Democrats hold the senate & some red & purple state Republicans continue to obstruct.

      Like

    • star0garnet's avatar

      I doubt it will be a serious topic of conversation for Dems unless we get to the point where we have a Dem senate during a third consecutive Dem presidential term. We’re set to finish this presidential term with the districts courts at about 55% Dem, 40% GOP, and 5% vacant. Another Biden term will leave us anywhere from 65% Dem, 30% GOP, 5% vacant to 45% Dem, 35% GOP, 20% vacant. The scenario where it’s a serious topic for Dems is likely around 55% Dem, 30% GOP, 15% vacant.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to Dequan Cancel reply