Stacey Neumann – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine

Portland based attorney Stacey Neumann has distinguished herself over her career as a litigator and has now been tapped for a rare judicial vacancy in Maine.

Background

Stacey D. Neumann attended James Madison University, where she received a B.A. magna cum laude in 2000. Neumann subsequently received a J.D. magna cum laude from Cornell University in 2005 and then clerked for Judge John Dooley on the Vermont Supreme Court and then for Judge Peter Hall on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In 2007, Neumann joined the Office of the Defender General in Chittenden County, Vermont. In 2009, she moved to become an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Maine. In 2013, she left to go into private practice in Portland, where she currently serves as a Partner at Murray, Plumb, & Murray.

History of the Vacancy

Neumann has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine to replace Judge Jon Levy who took senior status on May 6, 2024.

Legal Career

Neumann started her legal career as a public defender in Vermont and then spent a few years as a prosecutor in Maine before joining Murray, Plumb, & Murray in 2013, primarily focused on civil rights law. At the firm, Neumann handled a significant pro bono docket, including asylum cases and employment discrimination suits. See Renee Cordes, Pro Bono Work a Labor of Love for Portland Attorney Stacey Neumann, Maine Biz, Feb. 4, 2019, https://www.mainebiz.biz/article/pro-bono-work-a-labor-of-love-for-portland-attorney-stacey-neumann. For example, Neumann represented a Black Lives Matter protester in a case that led to a settlement promoting restorative justice conversations. See id.

Among her more notable cases, Neumann was part of the legal team representing a student and his family in a suit against a Maine school district for violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. See Ms. S. v. Regional Sch. Unit 72, 829 F.3d 95 (1st Cir. 2016). In another notable case, Neumann represented Charlene Richard, a teacher who sued her school district claiming that she was retaliated against due to her advocacy on behalf of students with disabilities. Richard v. Regional Sch. Unit 57, 296 F. Supp. 3d 274 (D. Me. 2017). After a five day bench trial, Judge Chandler Woodcock ruled that Richard was unfairly targeted by the school but that such targeting did not violate the law. See id. at 308. The First Circuit eventually affirmed the ruling over the dissent of Judge Juan Torruella. See Richard v. Regional Sch. Unit 57, 901 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2018).

Political Activity

Neumann has a handful of political donations to her name, all to Democrats.

Writings and Statements

In 2019, Neumann was profiled in an article discussing her pro bono work in Maine. See Renee Cordes, Pro Bono Work a Labor of Love for Portland Attorney Stacey Neumann, Maine Biz, Feb. 4, 2019, https://www.mainebiz.biz/article/pro-bono-work-a-labor-of-love-for-portland-attorney-stacey-neumann. In the article, Neumann discusses some of her work, and speaks particularly highly of her asylum cases noting that success in those cases is “the most wonderful feeling in the world.” See id.

Overall Assessment

Neumann’s long history with the relatively insular Maine legal community as well as her significant litigation experience are likely to be assets through the confirmation process. As long as she maintains the support of her home state senators, Neumann should be confirmed comfortably.

236 Comments

  3. Ethan's avatar

    She was surprisingly not on my radar but no complaints. For the 1st Circuit seat in Maine, I’d prefer someone like Carol Garvan, Nolan Reichl, or Julia Lipez, but I’m worried we’ll end up with someone like Christopher Taub as part of a deal. But I’ll take that deal if it means other seats get filled.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Gavi's avatar

    Besides Ethan and other local Georgians, how many of us had this race on our radar? And we’re much more tuned into matters of the judiciary than most other Americans. To have 4 seats on the ballot but only 1 competitive is quite sad. Not that the single contested seat fills me with confidence. Against a 37-year-old appointed right winger former Clarence Thomas clerk, libs could only find a 69-year-old has-been? I know that there’s no mandatory retirement age, but still.

    Kemp and Republicans know that 500k on a state supreme court seat is money well spent. Liberals have such a long way to go on giving a damn about the courts.

    https://apnews.com/article/georgia-supreme-court-john-barrow-pinson-kemp-af5bac585f35a950a1a91628a38c0cbe

    Liked by 1 person

  6. tsb1991's avatar

    Bulsara confirmed. Now we’re up to six confirmed district court judges who will be filling vacancies much later in the year (the EDNY vacancy isn’t until December, the closest of the six confirmed district judges to taking the bench is Yoon, who can do so in July).

    Vote for Schulte now underway. His SJC vote if I remember was 12-9 but it looks like he should get decent Republican support. McConnell voted yes and it looked like Tillis, who would have voted no in the SJC, voted yes.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. dawsont825's avatar

    With all this talk about a backroom deal with Sen. Collins voting for Aframe and all circuit court nominees in exchange for basically picking a moderate to the 1st circuit vacancy from Maine. I think I even saw someone mention that Schumer may offer to not fund a serious challenger to her in 2026. With that out there… is she even running in 2026? She famously pledged to only serve two terms, then broke it when she ran for another term in 2008. Then she’s just been winning and kicking Dem/Ind ass for that seat every reelection cycle since. Does she even want another term?

    I do think she may want another term, but I don’t know if she’ll want to campaign for it and serve *another* 6 years. That’ll mean she will be a senator from 1997-2033. Absolutely wild. If she decides to retire, a Dem or at least an Independent in the mold of Angus King will more than likely take her seat. She’s the last GOP senator from the New England/upper NE area since Sen. Ayotte lost by less than 1% in 2016.

    Getting back to the judiciary, I think the only nominees that Susan Collins will vote against is Mangi and Ritz (and whoever is nominated to the other 6th circuit vacancy). She’ll support Aframe, Maldonado and the eventual 3rd circuit vacancy. More than likely will support Kidd as long as neither Scott nor Rubio come out strongly against him (Kennedy is in play for Kidd as well). And I think she’ll support whoever Biden nominates to the 4th circuit, as long as Budd nor Tillis raise a big fuss (one of them more than likely will). She’s a strong advocate for civility politics and bipartisanship, but she’s also a republican. So, she’ll happily vote for FedSoc hacks to blue-state circuit court vacancies, but don’t count on her to help f*ck over red-state senators.

    Moral of the story: Fill all remaining circuit court and blue-state district court vacancies, then fight like hell to get package deals to fill purple state and red-state blue slips returned. Trump’s 4-year record is beatable, just need unity to get it done.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      I thought about that the other day but forgot to write it in the blog. I too think Kennedy’s vote is in play for Kidd. He has a decent record supporting Black men, including in his own state.

      I disagree bearing Trump’s record of 54 circuit court judges in 4 years is beatable. Not because Biden & Schumer couldn’t do it. Just because we won’t have 54 vacancies before September.

      Liked by 1 person

      • dawsont825's avatar

        I wasn’t talking about the 4-year record of circuit court confirmations. Trump had a lot of help with that.

        I was talking about the 234 (or whatever it officially is when you take away duplicates from elevations). There are at least 10 nominees waiting for a vote in the whole senate and a bunch more waiting for a vote in the SJC. Not to mention more nominations coming for blue-state vacancies.

        I think Biden, Schumer, and Durbin can surpass Trump’s overall record, but they need to grow a spine and get the 3 (possibly more) senators who are confirmed no votes on Mangi to either switch their votes or skip town on the day of the vote. McConnell would NEVER allow multiple senators to defect like this on a judicial nominee.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Ah ok, I misunderstood. We were talking about circuit court vacancies so I thought you meant Trump’s 54. It still will be difficult to match 230 (234-4 duplicates) but I agree that’s at least within the realm of possibility.

        As for possible additional red state district court confirmations before the end of the year, I just don’t see Missouri happening. With less than six months to the election, Hawley has zero incentive to not hold as many seats open as possible so his wife could be nominated in a potential Trump term. And that doesn’t even account for Schmidt. Oh do I kiss the days of McCaskill & Blunt… Sigh

        I only see a small number of red states left that we can realistically see nominees for this year.

        Florida & North Carolina are two because they each have circuit court vacancies we can see a deal with. I intentionally left Tennessee off this list as I think it’s unlikely we will see a nominee for the WDTN get confirmed this year.

        Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana & Texas are smaller possibilities but I wouldn’t them out.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Joe's avatar

        If every current nominee is confirmed and every current appellate/blue state district vacancy is filled, that would give Biden 237 confirmations.

        Now there are a lot of caveats to consider there because that includes Mangi, Kanter, Shaw Wilder, and Jackson as well as the Kent Jordan vacancy, but you get the idea.

        There may be a few new vacancies or surprise red state packages too to add to the number.

        Liked by 2 people

  9. dawsont825's avatar

    Oklahoma was one of the more unlikely red states to give Biden an unlikely win in terms of district court nominees. With 6 months until the election and only a month and a half after that of the lame duck, what other surprising states could Biden nominate district court judges to?

    I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say he’ll get at least one nominee to the district court in Missouri. There are way too many vacancies to not agree to a consensus magistrate or respected former prosecutor. I know both Hawley and Schmidt are two insufferable shit stains, but eventually when chief judges, other judges at the district court level and court personnel complain about the mounting backlog of cases, something has to give.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mitch's avatar

      @dawsont825

      I think that Eastern Missouri could produce two nominees for the same reason, one of them a Republican. I’m not saying will, just could. The sheer number of vacancies puts the Senators in an awkward position.

      Two names to watch, which I’ve mentioned before, are Magistrate Judges Shirley Padmore Mensah, an immigrant from Liberia who’d make history but has a conventional background, and John Bodenhausen, a Republican who got his law degree in 1998 and is considered apolitical.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I don’t buy Missouri will get nominees this year but if so, I’m sure the administration is pushing HARD for Mohammed Ahmed. He was included as one of the four recommendations for the Central District of Illinois. I’m sure the WH would accept a reasonable Republican if Hawley & Schmit would sign off on him. And of course, that would add to the list of Muslim nominees with a guaranteed confirmation with two red state senators support (Or at least blue slips turned in).

        The problem is, according to the article from last week, they are pushing Federalist Society hacks. Out of all the Republicans Biden has nominated so far, none have been far right. Hawley is probably pushing somebody to the right of his wife, if not her for the Republican pick.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        It’s Illinois I barely see any ties to for Mohammed Ahmed. If you got to his LinkedIn page (Below), it has “Federal Public Defender for the Eastern District of Missouri” listed TWICE before you even scroll down. My guess is since Illinois is a blue state, both senators informed Biden they would sign off on him if they can’t cut a deal in Missouri since it’s right across the river.

        I’m sure he has some ties to Illinois with its close proximity so going by the historic nature of his would-be confirmation combined with wanted to offset any anger for Mangi not getting confirmed, they wanted a plan B for him. Not to mentioned he’s an A+ in my book.

        (https://www.linkedin.com/in/mohammed-ahmed-89692ab)

        Liked by 1 person

  10. star0garnet's avatar

    @Gavi

    The process will take at least a decade; it did for the GOP. We should fight like hell to get Barrow his seat, but I’d be pleasantly surprised if he gets within 10% of winning. We’ve yet to see how vulnerable incumbents are, it’s been over a decade since we’ve had a clear D vs. R race, and no incumbent has ever lost. Meanwhile, a competent campaign should land us the governorship, even in a Biden midterm. Even if Barrow does pull off an upset, we need a Dem governor in place to replace him in a few years. Like it or not, the Georgia Supreme Court runs through the governorship.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hank's avatar

      I hope that this is just for show and Durbin isn’t actually this much of a sucker, but I wouldn’t put it past the Dems to fold like a cheap suit like they always do.

      Note how Tillis is one of the ones clamoring to bring back blue slips now (when his refusal to return one is about to be ignore). No Republican expressed any hesitancy when they scrapped it in the first place, but now that reinstating blue slips would give Republicans 4 (arguably 5, depending on what Collins does) circuit vacancies to fill next year, they’re suddenly for bipartisanship? I would hope that even someone as naive as Durbin would see how fake this is – there’s no way that the Republicans agree to only enact it prospectively when they’re favored to win the Senate (and honestly, probably the presidency) in November. It’s more likely that they’ll pretend to agree just to keep these 5 circuit vacancies open, then turn around and scrap blue slips again if they win.

      Even if this is just for show, there really needs be some public backlash from progressive groups on this ridiculous idea.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Joe's avatar

    I believe Durbins statement to be gamesmanship. At least I certainly hope so.

    From a purely non political standpoint I would say blue slips make some sense for district seats. Those for the most part are purely state matters and you want judges to reflect the values of the state. But circuit judges affect the entire circuit and should reflect the current political climate more.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Zack's avatar

    Yea..you don’t say this in public because it makes it sound like you’re already conceding that you’ll lose the Senate.
    Also, until we fill all the current vacancies, no deal on blue slips for circuit court seats, period.
    Finally, all due respect to a couple of folks here, many progressive groups are too busy accusing Joe Biden of personally being involved in the latest Middle East war and stating they’ll stay home or vote third party because of it so I don’t think the WH will be putting stock in what they say.
    Moderate groups/senators will have to lean in as well as Biden and say no deal.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hank's avatar

      More BS from Zack, per usual – where’s the evidence that Demand Justice has suddenly pivoted to the Israeli-Palestinian issue? Or that Alliance for Justice has? Let alone ACS? Can you name any judiciary-focused group that has threatened to not vote for Biden? Or any prominent left-leaning organization at all that has declared that has done so? Even Rashida Tlaib hasn’t gone that far (https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/02/29/congress/tlaib-november-elections-michigan-biden-uncommitted-00144111), so where exactly are these stridently anti-Biden progressive groups that you’re so obsessed with?

      Stop bringing Israel/Palestine when it has nothing to do with the judiciary (except for Mangi’s nomination, which we’ve discussed ad nauseam already and wasn’t the topic of any of the comments on this post). If you want to be a shill for the far-right Netanyahu regime that even many Israelis oppose these days, that’s fine – just go do that on another blog.

      Like

  14. tsb1991's avatar

    Nominations hearing posted for next week. I’d think we know not to expect Jackson or Shaw-Wilder, biggest question mark at this point would be if Neumann appears.

    Also curious on attendance tomorrow. Several Republicans were out, and Manchin did not vote today (although he was in yesterday). Do they really come back tomorrow to cast one or two votes when they could start their weekend early? Also, Manchin being absent wouldn’t be the worst Democratic absence, if he’s a no on Aframe.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Zack's avatar

    @Hank, When a certain part of the base is saying they’ll stay home because of an issue, that along other issues we’ve brought up at times matter, especially when it comes to pressure on judges.
    As to your other point, I haven’t been on here as much after the Mangi arguments but I will post here now and again and I don’t need your permission to do so.
    Just skip over my posts like I’m doing with yours and if an ignore feature comes along, we can both use it so we don’t have to be bothered with posts.
    Now back to judges..

    Like

    • Hank's avatar

      So basically you can’t name any groups beyond “a certain part of the base” – no names, no idea about the size of this “part”, no indication that they’re even real people who can vote/have voted for Dems in the past/not just Russian bots. Sounds about right.

      And trust me, I do usually just roll my eyes and skip over your posts. Sometimes you make outlandish claims that are completely ridiculous lack any factual basis though, and I’ll continue correcting and calling those out as needed.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Aiden's avatar

      I just feel like your take lacks any actual understanding or empathy.

      This issue isn’t like that of climate change or Medicare. Where some on the left threatened to stay home or vote greens in protest of Bidens moderate policies.

      Biden again and again has sent 100s of millions in military aid to Israel. With those very weapons used to brutally bomb Palestinians.
      Now whether perhaps the justification of eradicating Hamas makes it necessary is a different question.
      Many people have close family ties to those in Palestine or just simply cannot morally accept the current circumstances.

      The link between Biden and Palestine is far stronger than you’re making it out to be. We will likely see these consequences for the liberal base in states such as Michigan.

      Whether you disagree or agree with the issue. People have every right to be angry.

      I can imagine people are very sick and tired of been told to vote the better of two evils. So that advice could begin wearing thin.

      The view for many may be that the benefit of left wing judges or liberal policies cannot outweigh the bloodshed their vote could indirectly allow. (That may be how they see it)

      Palestine is clearly a very different issue with very different consequences, compared to some of the prior issues that those on the left have threatened to stay home for. We are talking about accusations of genocide being involved.

      Now of course it can be argued that Trump will be even worse for Palestine but I think that’s only one part of the decision that people have to make.

      Now I’d like to emphasis that I don’t want to express too much of a view on the issue. I just think minimzing issues doesn’t help. Whether they are issues promoting conservative or liberal issues or ones like these.

      Liked by 1 person

  17. Zack's avatar

    I will say one thing on Mangi’s nomination, if anyone thinks Judge Quraishi would fare any better if he was nominated, they’re fooling themselves.
    Conservatives would have him become public enemy number one in no time.
    Before Judge Joseph Greenaway, that seat was held by none other then Sam Alito and McConnell & company would just love to have that seat revert back to someone like him.
    At this point, it appears Mangi’s nomination isn’t going anywhere so I hope they have a plan to confirm him in the lame duck period versus giving a seat away.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Gavi's avatar

    This admission is either a senior moment slip-up by Grassley or plain midwestern honesty:

    “’McConnell had a good plan going and the blue slip for the circuit judges was standing in the way and he wanted to get as many circuit judges on as you could get. And that’s part of the reason it was revised and effectively eliminated,’ the Iowa Republican said Wednesday.”

    I don’t expect anything better of Durbin and can’t wait to see the eventual retirement of Dems like him, but I’m disappointed that Whitehouse would consider this farce.

    Are Dems really that eager to resume the nomination and confirmation of Julie Carne-type judges? (Not that they need blue slips to give us Irma Ramirez-type.)

    Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Frank

        I can answer that. Because you can NOT guarantee Republicans won’t get rid of blue slips next time they are in power. If they have the presidency, senate & White House, you are simply relying on TRUST that they won’t change the hypothetical law you are talking about. Do we need to go through the laundry list of times Republicans said one thing, only to turn right around & do the opposite over the past decade or so?

        And the Republican Party of today (And more importantly tomorrow) will be MUCH more to the right of the Republican Party of yesterday. So this all comes down to trust. I have NONE

        Liked by 1 person

      • Gavi's avatar

        How can it possibly be ensured? Everything you think to suggest would be nothing more than mere practice/tradition or at best, a senate rule — both of which can be easily brushed aside as the need arises.

        There’s no mechanism by which this could be codified into law. The Constitution gives the president full power over nomination. Only after that does the senate have a formal role, by advising and consenting. The constitution doesn’t say “the senate shall advise, then the president shall nominate, then the senate shall consent to nominations.”

        So yes, please tell us how you think you could ensure Republicans won’t kill the blue slip yet again.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        But again, there is no bipartisanship if one side plays by a set of rules only for the other side not to when they are back in power. No matter what you WISH, it still comes back to do you trust Republicans to hold up their end of the bargain when they are in power.

        They were not trustworthy the last time hey were in power. The next time they are, they will have far more conservative senators in Utah, Missouri & a number of other states. So I am not seeing the logic that they will be MORE trustworthy with a more conservative caucus. What am I missing @Frank???

        Like

  21. Mike S.'s avatar

    I read that article, Republicans are total hypocrites when it come to circuit court blue slips. Support them when you’re out of power, against them when you’re in power. At least they are open about it – they make up their own rules that suit them when it comes to confirming judges.

    I don’t ming keeping the blue slip in place for district court judges IF that means that they are not abused, which they most certainly are by certain Republican senators. But you just can’t trust Republicans when they are in power to do the right thing. That’s just what it boils down to.

    I’m OK with Mangi getting confirmed after the election if it’s possible, but I don’t want to risk the seat either. Hoping we move forward with more circuit court judges getting confirmed in coming weeks. Now is not the time to slow down…

    Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        There was a deal for three district court nominees in Washington. That fell through when Eric Miller was shoved down Murray & Cantwell’s throat. In the case of New Jersey, their circuit court nominee wasn’t even offered to meet with Menendez & Booker until 2 days before he was announced.

        There have been no circuit court vacancies under Biden for Arkansas, Alabama, Missouri or Wisconsin. Those Republican senators are just not working in good faith. There is a difference.

        Liked by 1 person

  22. Dequan's avatar

    After Seth AFrame is confirmed next week hopefully, that will leave only three pending nominees left over from last year. Adeel Mangi, Mustafa Kasubhai & Sarah Russell. It’s not a good look that two of the three are Muslims. It would be great if Schumer can get Kasubhai & Ali confirmed next week before the May 26th recess week.

    Like

  23. raylodato's avatar

    @Frank: How much more evidence do you need to understand that the Republicans are not going to play fair? Is there anything in particular that you have to see to convince you?

    I’m serious–if the SCOTUS nominations in 2016 and 2020 didn’t convince you, what more do you need?

    Liked by 2 people

  24. Mitch's avatar

    Regarding the Fourth Circuit vacancy in North Carolina, a name which could emerge could be Michael Easley, the U.S. Attorney whose father was Governor. He was confirmed by voice vote and I’m not aware of any controversy he’s generated.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. Zack's avatar

    @Frank,
    The issue is since the Clinton years, Republicans have shown norms like blue slips etc. are only to be honored when Democrats have the WH and they or Democrats control the Senate and that any kind of major deals are only done to benefit them, not Democrats.
    Part of the reason there was a filibuster on some of George W’s nominees was that the blue slip rule Republicans insisted be honored under Clinton was ignored and that all of a sudden, seats on the D.C. Circuit that didn’t need to be filled under Clinton had to be filled ASAP under W.
    Also, the nuclear option wasn’t done under W because a deal was struck to let some right wing nominees like Janice Brown and Bill Pryor through.
    When Democrats tried to do a similar deal under Obama, they got told to kick rocks, which is why Reid finally bit the bullet on it, even though he knew it would hurt us down the line, it had to be done or Republicans would have had more seats to fill.
    And of course, let us not forget how Leahy honoring the blue slip rule under Obama as well as letting W get nominees confirmed under W after Democrats got rewarded with several circuit court seats that could and should have been filled under Obama being filled under Trump instead, with the blue slip rule once again going in the trash.
    Anyone who thinks Republicans will honor any kind of deal made here, especially if we don’t fill the remaining Circuit Court vacancies is living in fantasy land.
    If nothing else, with Robert King doing what he did with his nomination, if James Wynn seat stays open, Republicans have a chance to flip the 4th back to conservative control.
    That is what is Tillis among others want with the blue slip rule being put back in place.
    Hopefully Biden and others will make clear that isn’t happening.

    Liked by 3 people

  26. Dequan's avatar

    (Slightly off topic of judges) I didn’t know an acting cabinet secretary could be in the presidential line of succession. This is the first I’m learning of this. While I don’t want to make a habit of it, I do kind of agree with Republicans on this one (Albeit not for the same reasons). I don’t think anybody that hasn’t been confirmed for their current cabinet secretary position should be in the presidential line of succession.

    (https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans-furious-labor-secretary-line-182940200.html)

    Like

  28. Gavi's avatar

    I can’t believe we’re still talking about Biden filling vacancies in states like MO and AK. As I have already said many many times—even before May 2024, just 6 months before the election—those are two states that Biden won’t need to waste any time negotiating district court vacancies, if he’s not looking to nominate a Chad Meredith-type.

    What @Dawsont and @Mitch really need to explain to us is what evidence are they looking at that the rest of us cannot see that leads them to believe that the average voters care about unfilled vacancies and court backlogs. Who are the people showing up at townhalls and senators’ offices demanding to know why their case is moving so slowly through the judicial system? Where are the news stories about angry protests outside courts, demanding Biden to do his job? Ridiculous. I would say most Americans wouldn’t even know the difference between local, state, and federal courts, let alone know who to complain about not getting a court date after a long wait.

    We do not have to guess or hypothesize.

    WA, NJ, and most of CA’s trial court vacancies went unfilled during the Trump years. Do you have evidence of a backlash to those? Some of those court are even busier than some of the ones in red states with numerous vacancies. I guess what you’re saying is Booker and Murray, two very normie Dems, were willing to face the angry mobs of people clamoring for court access in their states, while Cotton and Hawley, MAGA extremists, aren’t.

    I’ll save this comment for when we inevitably return to this fantasy, even closer to the election.

    I’ll be very happy to eat my words, made even more scrumptious if the nominees are worth a Dem’s president’s appointment. But something tells me I’ll just have to grab a bagel instead.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Joe's avatar

    I am with Gavi. I do not see any of the Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alaska, or Alabama seats being filled this year. Just no chance. Would love to be surprised, but I think the writing is on the wall.

    If another red state package does come it would likely be from FL/NC with those Circuit vacancies. If there was a bit more time I’d say perhaps Texas, Louisiana, or South Carolina could be in play. I think the prospects are low, and senators probably prefer to kick the can to 2025 and see what the makeup of the WH/senate is next year.

    Liked by 2 people

  30. Ads's avatar

    A little off topic but this ultimately affects the Democrats’ ability to confirm judges. Does Colin Allred have ANY chance in Texas? Beto came very close in 2018…and we ARE talking about Ted Cruz as the incumbent here. I don’t think even a majority of Texans like that guy. I’m asking because I’m considering contributing to Allred’s campaign later this year.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ads's avatar

      I actually feel serenely confident about Brown and Tester. They seem to benefit from a sort of grandfathered-in electorate sanity (from when they were first elected) in their otherwise MAGA States. How else can one explain Brown polling ahead of his potential general election opponents in a State that would elect a lazy and brazenly disingenuous nakedly ambitious Jim Vance over Tim Ryan?

      Liked by 2 people

  33. Joe's avatar

    Camela Theeler makes judge number 197 for Biden. Aframe will likely make it number 198 on Monday.

    Knowing how much Schumer, Durbin, and the WH like to promote milestones, I wonder if they will try to move forward on at least two more district nominees next week to hit 200.

    Liked by 2 people

  34. tsb1991's avatar

    Theeler’s vote was 90-4, but the CRA vote right before that had 98 Senators voting, with Hawley and Menendez not voting (Hawley didn’t vote on Theeler either). Both sides are down at least one Senator, and the Aframe vote is still on track to happen.

    Should also get some cloture motions by Schumer after the vote.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Dequan's avatar

    Theeler is a Republican yet four senators still voted against her. The idea that those four, Britt, Schmitt, Sullivan, and Tuberville are going to work in good faith to fill vacancies in their states when they can’t even vote for a Republican for a seat in South Dakota, makes me laugh.

    Liked by 2 people

  37. Zack's avatar

    @Dequan, this.
    There will be vacancies in AK/AL/MO until a Republican is in office or the blue slip rule is ditched altogether.
    As for Camela Theeler, yes she’s flipping a district court seat but it’s hard for me to get worked up about that given that the 8th has more Republican judges then any other circuit court and can easily overturn anything a liberal/moderate judge does and she fills a judicial emergency.
    It appears she will be stationed in Rapid City so I guess that answers the question of who was going to take over Viken’s spot there.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Joe's avatar

    Zack, I take your point and concede that we likely aren’t getting any groundbreaking decisions from Theeler or Schulte. However, the scope of most cases in district courts is local and is mostly apolitical.

    I would argue that having center right and center left judges presiding over cases rather than right wing hacks who play politics with peoples lives is the far preferable outcome. Even vacancies themselves can create major backlogs and other problems if left unfilled.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ben's avatar

      Very good. These plus Aframe get us to 200 before Memorial Day break.
      Aframe got 52 for cloture and his confirmation is scheduled for Monday night.
      I’d have to assume the 3-4 longest waiting district nominees will require either perfect attendance or more likely waiting until after the election. Vulnerable senators would rather not have those votes on display I’m assuming. A shame.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Joe's avatar

        Keystone, I am hopeful that Maldonado will get set up for the end of next week. As far as I know there is no legislation expected in the near future besides another go at the border bill. Schumer could file cloture on 2-3 more nominees plus Maldonado for next week. Perhaps he’s waiting to see what attendance will be like.

        Liked by 2 people

  42. Joe's avatar

    Good to see. That would take us to 200! And the two nominees to do it just so happen to be from the home state of a certain Independent senator….

    I’m probably reading too much into that and it’s merely an issue of Schumer going more of less in order but it’s good to see nonetheless.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. tsb1991's avatar

    Schatz wrapped up. Since thankfully the Senate is in on Monday, we could get more cloture motions sent out on Monday for either Wednesday or Thursday. They’ve hinted at voting on the border bill sometime next week, best-case from a nominations perspective is that it’s voted on Thursday morning since I highly doubt it will get 60 votes to proceed to it. Something else on the horizon is a CRA measure from Cruz that they may vote on next week, it was mentioned in Schumer’s wrap-up yesterday.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. Zack's avatar

    Once Aframe is confirmed we’ll have another flip, albeit of a moderate Republican in Judge Howard.
    I do think after Kent Jordan IF Biden wins and we somehow keep the Senate, I don’t think we’ll be seeing anymore Republican retirements from the courts, at least not ones that aren’t feet first like Kanne was.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jamie's avatar

      After Dequan and Gavi’s excellent explanations this weekend, I’m convinced that Biden doesn’t have to win for the Jordan seat to flip. Keeping the Senate could matter in theory if it is a party line vote, but if Collins/Murkowski or others are on board then I can’t see any motion to reconsider being brought up.

      That said if Biden loses a circuit court seat is the least of our worries.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ethan's avatar

      @Zack, I think there are a few that have an outside chance. Harris Hartz and James Loken are the first to come to mind. Maybe one of Milan Smith or Consuelo Callahan.

      By no means are any of these likely but I’d say the chances not much lower than the odds of Gibbons and Jordan were prior to their decisions.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Zack's avatar

      @Keystone,
      The most vile part of that attack on Aframe is Blackburn deliberately chooses to leave out the fact the victim in the case in question didn’t want to testify against her abuser which is why the 30 year deal (of which he has to serve at least 25 before being eligible for parole) was done.
      I can’t imagine how the victim feels having to have the worst part of her life brought up again for a political lie.
      Just another reason why Blackburn and other Republicans deserve no quarter when it comes to blue slips etc.

      Liked by 3 people

  46. Gavi's avatar

    Sorry about the paywall link below, but did you see the news about Alito’s Stop the Steal symbol on his property? If a liberal judge did anything half as bad Republicans would be up in arms! Now we have 2 SCOTUS justices/spouses we are promoting their MAGA Big Lie.

    Alito has always been probably the worst political hack to serve on SCOTUS, so I can’t say that I’m surprised or disappointed. But I am prepping myself to not be too disappointed with Dems’ weak disapproval at this outrageous act. This is truly beyond the pale. It’s just a pity it took so long for this to come to light.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/us/justice-alito-upside-down-flag.html

    Liked by 3 people

  47. Zack's avatar

    Alito was first put on the 3rd Circuit when he was just 41 under George W so he could build up a record as a right wing hack, which is why the Federalist Society had W pick him after they sunk Harriet Miers’s nomination.
    And they’ve gotten everything they want out of him.
    As far as calling him out, the reality is there is nothing that is going to get him or Thomas off SCOTUS until they choose to retire or leave feet first.
    If some folks had cared about stopping them, they would have shown up in 2016,14,10 to elect Democrats/protect the majority.
    But they didn’t so here we are, being ruled by a joke of a right wing court that will be dragging this country back to civil war times while they laugh all the way.

    Liked by 1 person

  48. Mitch's avatar

    Progressives were pleasantly surprised by the Supreme Court today. It ruled to preserve the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    Joining the three Democratic-appointed justices were Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito. That’s right, Samuel Alito cast the deciding vote for a progressive victory.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to Joe Cancel reply