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

    • Dequan's avatar

      This is absolutely terrific news. Steve Jones has made a couple rules I was disappointed in so I’m happy he will enjoy retirement & January isn’t a date too soon. Warnock & Ossoff have been spectacular in picks with me giving Abudu & the two NDGA woman they have chosen an A+, A & A so far.

      I have no doubt they can move quickly to get another stellar nominee named by the end of the Summer recess & confirmed in the lame duck. Neither of them are up for reelection this year so I have high hopes for this pick.

      Like

      • Ethan's avatar

        As a Georgian, I’m definitely excited for this vacancy. I will share my thoughts. Because of Manchin’s pledge, I unfortunately don’t think this nominee will be quite on the level of Geraghty and Calvert. Here’s some names I would watch:

        • Magistrate Judge Justin Anand (born c. 1971). He’s a former AUSA who clerked for liberal SDNY Judge Jed Rakoff. Not particularly progressive but he’d be the first AAPI judge in Georgia.
        • Magistrate Judge Catherine Salinas (born c. 1968). She is a former federal defender and also worked for Texas Rural Legal Aid. I’m not sure if he’s actually Hispanic. I’ve seen her picture since she’s originally from Texas, it’s quite possible she’s a multi-generational Texan “Tejano”. She also was board President of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society and chair of the Access to Justice committee of the State Bar of Georgia. Overall, everything is good about her except age.
        • Dax Lopez (born 1975). He was nominated by Obama with blue slips turned in by Georgia’s then Republican Senators. At the time he was a State Court Judge but now he’s in private practice (I actually went to college with his law partner Antonio delCampo’s son). He’s not super progressive but he is a Democrat since his wife Zulma Lopez used to served in the Georgia General Assembly as a Democrat.
        • My top pick would be Sean J. Young (born c. 1980) who works as an Assistant Federal Public Defender for the Northern District of Georgia. He is AAPI and used to be Legal Director of the ACLU of Georgia. But I doubt he’ll meet Manchin’s standard of at least one Republican vote.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I hope neither Anand or Salinas are picked. They are too old for my liking for this seat. I’m very familiar with Dax Lopez from the Obama nomination. I was ok with him with two Republican senators but I think I rather see him remain in private practice.

        My top pick is Fred Smith Jr. He’s a college professor, young, LGBT African American who seems to be progressive. He would be well positioned for elevation in the future.

        A young progressive Hispanic or Sean J. Young would be my next pick.

        Like

  5. Ads's avatar

    If Durbin was actually silly enough to have been serious about bringing back blue slips in the belief that Republicans would act in good faith when they’re back in power, he should be convinced not to by their cynicism which is evident in the fact that absolutely NO REPUBLICANS let alone Republican Senators have yet spoken up on Alito’s use of the Stop The Steal symbol. Recusal on anything touching on Jan 6 cases should be the VERY LEAST of it. Passing a SCOTUS code of ethics is a more proportionate response. But even impeachment should be in the discussion. But Republicans have NOTHING to say; not even the “reasonable” ones like Collins or Murkowski.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Ads's avatar

    @Dequan, I looked up Durbin’s statement. For a second there you had me concerned that he somehow found a way to come to Alito’s defense. Anyways, if nothing else, he should scrap the re-instating blue slips thing if he was ever actually considering it.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Mike's avatar

    If Dems are able to confirm all 27 current Biden nominees that will get him to 218 active judges not counting double dips of judges he’s elevated.

    I don’t know if the administration has another 16 nominees in them (only 14 vacancies in blue states) but it’s possible for him to match Trumps number.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Joe's avatar

      If we aren’t counting “double dipping” for Biden then we should do the same for Trump. I think that number would be 229 then instead of 234 (Quattlebaum, Brasher, Walker, Phipps, and Coney Barret)

      At this point I fully expect Biden to pass Trump whichever way you slice it.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Gavi's avatar

    @Ryan

    I’m sorry, what? Did you actually read the article? It specifically said that his wife turned their flag upside down. Not another Trump supporter. In fact, some neighbor or another had an ANTI-Trump sign up. So how does the justice and his wife respond? By taking the time to lower their flag from the flagpole in their yard, turn it upside down in the fashion of the Stop the Stealers, and kept it like that for however long.

    Nothing here occured in a vacuum. This did not happen after Trump won in 2016 when many anti-Trump signs can be found everywhere, probably including liberal Northern Virginia or the general DMV area. This happened during a movement led by Trump and his supporters to deny his 2020 election loss and keep him in office. Now we know that a sitting SCOTUS justice and his wife were involved.

    Republicans do much more for much less: The secretary of DHS was impeached for a policy difference with House Republicans. Impeachment articles will be filed against Biden for exercising his authority to stop or limit arms transfer to a foreign country. The AG will be held in contempt of Congress for the president’s assertion of executive privilege over DOJ material.

    There’s no way to make the Alito thing look OK or not a big deal. But Dems will manage it.

    Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        That’s only if math was the only obstacle to confirming Mangi. Unfortunately Durbin is on record during the Tuberville military promotions blockade on this issue, he was asked since Tuberville was going to New Jersey to be with Trump & the senate was in session, why not just confirm the military promotions then.

        Durbin said that was tempting but then followed up by saying the debate had a tradition of not confining somebody when a senator had a stated objection but was out for some reason. So that would apply with Mangi too. Something tells me if 3 Republicans objected to confirming ACB & a Democrat senator got the flu shortly before Election Day 2020, McConnell would have forgotten all about that unwritten rule. But we all know Democrats won’t…smh

        Like

      • keystone's avatar

        I’m not sure how the math works on that one.

        With regards to votes for next week, I’m curious as to what Collins and Murkowski are thinking about Maldonado.

        • They voted her previously
        • She has 2 blue slips from her home state Senators.
        • The criticism against her for this new role pales in comparison to what the GOP tried to lob at Aframe (who got C and M’s votes)
        • The GOP’s main attack was a bunch of judges belittling a female judge and telling her she should work harder and faster. I could see Collins and Murkowski not loving that.

        I’m also wondering about Jeanette Vargas. I still don’t understand why her committee vote was party line.

        Liked by 2 people

      • tsb1991's avatar

        Regarding Tuberville’s military promotions blockade, Senators do object on behalf of one another. Mike Lee would typically go and object on the UC requests for military promotions if Tuberville wasn’t around, I know at one point last December I believe (right around the holidays when a ton of Republicans were out), Tom Cotton did object on a bill that he supported but other Republicans who were not in attendances weren’t giving consent to pass. Definitely wasn’t a good answer by Durbin when he responded to that question by Tuberville.

        For trying to confirm Mangi if enough Republicans are out, I think if Democrats don’t have 50 yes votes locked up (as in, more than one Democrat opposes the confirmation), they wouldn’t hold a vote to confirm. If someone like Dale Ho or Abudu only had 49 votes from Democrats and not 50, they wouldn’t have been confirmed even if enough Republicans took an all-expenses paid for by Leonard Leo cruise around the Caribbean. I think Pelosi, in the aftermath of the first impeachment attempt of Mayorkas failing (which happened when Republicans miscalculated Democratic attendance) made the point of having your side’s ducks lined up and not relying on the minority party’s attendance.

        On another note, once Aframe is confirmed, there will be three confirmed judges who can take the bench at any time (Aframe, Schulte, Theeler), and after the two Arizona nominees are confirmed, we’ll be up to eight confirmed judges who cannot take the bench until later on in the year (the seat for Lanham becomes vacant on June 1, the seat Martinez was nominated to becomes vacant on July 1, so not too far off for Lanham).

        Liked by 1 person

    • Gavi's avatar

      I won’t pretend like I’m not glad she’s off the court. Can you imagine being so bad that Leahy (!) refuses to give you a hearing?

      It’s just a shame the PA senators take so long to make recommendations to the WH, especially now that one of them is busy running for reelection.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Hopefully they had a strong third choice. That way this solved that problem & they can pick all three. I’m sure the first two will be announced first while the third gets vetted but no reason we can’t have all three nominees announced before the end of the Summer recess.

        Like

      • Gavi's avatar

        Yes, there’s a reason: the two PA senators haha. They’ll probably reopen the process to allow additional applicants.
        Fetterman’s been a disappointment on judges. The quickest I think he’s ever worked was that first recommendation he made at the start of his time in the senate, and that was honestly just a pro forma sign-off, since Casey and the WH had already done everything before and were just waiting for Toomey to leave.
        This goes to show that not all liberals care about the judiciary. Ruben Gallego may be another Fetterman in terms of judges. We just don’t know. So it would be foolish to assume that his progressivism means he’ll be good on judges. To say nothing of Elissa Slotkin.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. Zack's avatar

    @Gavi,
    As bad as Leahy was on blue slips, at least he was consistent on it.
    Several George W nominees to Circuit courts in states that had one or two Democratic senators never saw the light of day because it was made clear W wasn’t going to get blue slips from them.
    In Pratter’s case, civil rights groups opposed her nomination to the 3rd Circuit and Bob Casey agreed with them and wouldn’t return a blue slip and that was that.
    To your other point, I’m sad for her family but I’m not going to be upset that an anti-civil rights judge is off the bench, especially if she’s replaced with a moderate/progressive judge.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. keystone's avatar

    Amazing that all 3 of the current EDPA vacancies are Republicans ( even the Obama judge).

    Just a reminder that 1 of those noms will come from a different pool of people than the other two bc Judge Smith was based in Easton, not Philadelphia. Judges Rufe and Pratter are in Philly proper.

    Casey and Fetterman specifically set up a separate flow to replace Smith stipulating they wanted applicants from the Lehigh Valley (i.e Easton, Bethlehem, Allentown area). I know some people on here claim that geo doesn’t shouldn’t matter but it is a very different area than the Philly metro region. It’s also a very important part of the state with regards to elections and can be swingy.

    Just a friendly reminder.

    Liked by 1 person

    • tsb1991's avatar

      Yes, we could have a second hearing in June, we’d just need nominees this coming week for the second hearing (if they intend on having a Thursday hearing, maybe we get nominees this coming Thursday?).

      We could also have two hearings in July, one of them would need to be the week the Senate gets back (held on 7/10, we’d need nominees by 6/12). The Senate has the week off right after that (I think that’s the week of the Republican Convention), and could have a hearing 7/24 or 7/31 before the August break (nominations would be needed by 6/26 for the first possible window, 7/3 for the second one).

      Liked by 1 person

    • Joe's avatar

      The SJC can (and IMO should) have two hearings in June and two in July. We will need a batch this week to fill that second June hearing.

      After the August recess there is only a maximum of three additional SJC hearings (two in a Sept and a final one in Nov)that will matter, so the WH needs to step on the gas here

      Liked by 1 person

  14. Mitch's avatar

    I learned a little about Justin Anand. He was in NYC on September 11, 2021 and was on a subway when the Twin Towers were attacked. He moved to Atlanta for his wife, whose family is from there.

    While AUSA, he focused on cybercrime and white collar crime. He seems well-qualified and confirmable.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Zack's avatar

    In regards to the latest Sam Alito mess,
    the issue is even if Democrats do make a big a deal out of the latest reason to show he’s unfit to be a judge, there is nothing to be done.
    Alito/Thomas aren’t going to leave SCOTUS unless it’s a retirement under a Republican President/Senate or feet first.
    As I’ve said before, folks had a chance in 2016 to ensure Thomas/Alito would be in the minority and they blew it on protest votes etc so here we are.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ads's avatar

      @Zack I agree with everything you just wrote…except for the “there is nothing to be done” part. We KNOW what would have happened if Sotomayor, Kagan or KBJ had done anything even remotely equivalent to what Thomas and Alito routinely do. Yet the lesson that Democrats repeatedly fail to learn is that if you put something out into the universe passionately and repeatedly, a substantial part of the well meaning public starts to believe it and even act on it. Republicans repeatedly put outrage our into the public all the time until more than just MAGA starts to believe it…except much of what they put out are lies or built on lies. In the case of Thomas and Alito, the outrage (were Democrats to passionately voice it) would be truthful. However the low energy statements of disapproval by the Dems over this ensure that it amounts to little more than a 1 day news item…then it gets forgotten. We KNOW that Thomas and Alito will never step down…in THIS political environment…but if Dems were to consistently raise outrage about this, eventually Republicans Senators (for purposes of voting for a SCOTUS code of ethics or even impeachment) would HAVE TO start paying attention to it based on pressure from their constituents. Dems throwing their hands up and saying “it’s bad but whatcha gonna do” is not the answer.

      Liked by 1 person

      • shawnee68's avatar

        I agree with Zack. It’s not the Democratic leaders fault that people don’t vote.

        Voting is your civic responsibility. It’s not Chuck Schumer’s job to get people “interested” or “motivated.”

        It’s not just a Supreme Court problem. It’s younger voters not voting consistently and subsets of minority groups not voting at all.

        There’s always an excuse not to vote. Why not just admit that you’re too lazy to vote rather than saying the current President is too old or whatever?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hank's avatar

        @shawnee that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard – it’s not Schumer’s job to get Dem voters to turn out? By that logic, there’s no point in campaigning, and Biden should just sit back in the WH and twiddle his thumbs until November – what do you think the point of a political party is?

        This is not a country in which voting is mandated by law, so not voting sends as much as a message as voting – any seasoned politician knows that elections are as much about who votes as how they vote. Trump won in ‘16 partly because he was able to turn out new voters and persuade formerly Dem voters. Any Dem politician who thinks they have no obligation to do the same will lose their reelection, and rightfully so.

        And fully agree with @Gavi that the Dems should make a big deal out of this. Of course Thomas and Alito aren’t going to resign, but that isn’t the point – the point is to further discredit SCOTUS and reveal it for the corrupt, partisan hack job it has become. Once SCOTUS loses credibility with most Dems and independents, it’ll be easier to convince these weak-willed Dem politicians that something (whether term limits, partisan balancing, or jurisdiction stripping) needs to be done to reign it in. This is a long game, just like overruling Roe was for the conservatives.

        Liked by 2 people

      • shawnee68's avatar

        @Hank- I didn’t mean you for take what I said so literally. Of course, Schumer and Jeffries are representing us up there in Washington D.C . It’s their job.

        I think you know what I mean. It’s that other “thing.” No one can make you get off your ass and vote.

        When I was a student, the issue was rights of black people in South Africa. They wanted what we have and take for granted.

        In short, It’s sacrilege for any black American to not vote.

        Liked by 1 person

  16. Gavi's avatar

    Zack, always with the winning logic. Do you ever look forward? If it’s not Leahy’s blue slips, it’s attempting to shame others about 2016. Would Alito’s or Gina Thomas’s action be more acceptable if they were in the minority?

    And while we’re on their actions, making a big a deal out of this IS something to do. How ridiculous is it to think the choice is either impeachment/removal or nothing at all. How far does this logic extend?

    Let’s use your biggest issue, which you think should also be everyone’s issue: if tomorrow Clarence Thomas delivers a blatantly anti-LGBT speech that would prejudice his impartiality. What should we do then? Republicans still control the House and won’t do anything. Do we then just throw our hands up and say, “oh well, you Hillary haters didn’t vote for her in 2016, so there is nothing to be done.”?

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Ads's avatar

    @shawnee68 You are certainly right that voting is a civic responsibility that all of us should take seriously. You’re right that we shouldn’t have to motivate people to exercise this civic responsibility or work to get people to even be interested in it. But that is not American reality. Is the great sense of self satisfaction that you personally derive from taking your vote seriously enough to sustain you while politicians that support your causes repeatedly lose elections? …or are you going to do something about it? …and also demand that the politicians you support do something about it?

    Liked by 1 person

    • shawnee68's avatar

      @ADS- I don’t believe that the problems we have are the result of Democratic politicians.

      It’s more true and simpler to say the say the problem lies with lazy disaffected voters.

      I don’t see how not voting gets us to where we want to be. I see folks on tv making excuses.

      The truth is people are lazy and ignorant. You don’t need follow politics on a daily basis to figure out what is going on.

      The ONLY thing you do to fix the mess we are in is to vote. Anything other than that is doing NOTHING!

      Liked by 1 person

      • Ads's avatar

        @shawnee68, my response to your last comment to me is the same as my first to you. So I’ll abbreviate it. You have diagnosed the problem correctly (lazy disaffected voters). Are you and Democratic politicians gonna do anything to fix that problem even tho you/they didn’t cause it? …or are you and Dem politicians content to say “not my fault; it’s their fault” when we lose elections? Because to me, that kind of moral high ground is hollow and serves no purpose.

        Liked by 1 person

  19. keystone's avatar

    Regarding the EDPA vacancies… something I just really realized is how heavily the Court of Common Pleas acts as a feeder for that court.For example 2 of Biden’s 4 noms to that court were active Court of Common Pleas judges. 2 of the 3 current vacancies were judges on that court before being tapped.

    I’ve been looking over the judges on that court (there are a ton). One name that is kind of interesting imo is Tiffany Palmer.

    • B. ~1973/4
    • Court of Common Pleas Judge since 2020
    • Prior to this, she was a family law and civil rights attorney.
    • She was Director of the Family Law Institute of the National LGBT Bar Association
    • As a lawyer, she did a lot of work on adoption and assisted reproduction technology law, i.e. IVF.
    • She also worked on a pretty big case that involved the legality of surrogacy contracts.

    We’ve talked a lot on here about nominees with backgrounds in reproductive rights. We usually do that with regards to abortion. I think she’s interesting bc she has experience with a different area of reproductive rights.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      So far Fetterman has been the most disappointing Democrat new senator over the past decade or so on judges. I’m happy he’s the senator instead of Toomey but I certainly hope we see what I’m looking for in blue state judges (Young progressives) in the remaining 3 vacancies along with future vacancies to come.

      There is a slew of young progressive possibilities for the EDPA. Tiffany Palmer sounds good & to be honest, she would be the best recommendation this side of Fetterman to date. But I’m hoping for more solid nominees.

      Like

      • Ads's avatar

        I saw Fetterman on CNN this morning. I’m not entirely convinced how smart he is if he truly doesn’t understand the difference between being against Hamas and being against innocent Palestinians losing their lives because of Netanyahu’s bellicosity….and Biden’s 100% practical support of it (until very recently when he stopped sending military support to Netanyahu if he insisted on invading Rafah). Netanyahu is a ROGUE! He shouldn’t be unconditionally supported! Anyways, I realize that the relation of this subject matter is too attenuated to any discussion on judges. So we can end it here.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Gavi's avatar

        True about the disappointment of Fetterman on judges. I fear that he’s working out to be another Sinema, in terms of the disdain and disregard they treat the people who put them in office. At least Sinema gave us a triple A+ judge in Desi. Fetterman may find himself a 1 term senator without such a contribution to CA3.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Gavi

        VERY good point. We got an A+ on the 9th from Sinema at least. And in near record time for the modern-day era (It actually took longer for her to receive her commission than to confirm her).

        On another subject, CNN is reporting on expelling Sen. Bob Menendez if he’s convicted. I fully expect the corrupt piece of garbage to not do the right thing & resign, so at this point I only hope that any trial won’t be done during the normal senate in session schedule.

        (https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/19/politics/democratic-senators-bob-menendez/index.html)

        Like

  20. tsb1991's avatar

    Looking out past the Arizona nominees, the only other district court nominee not voted out of the SJC on a party-line vote was Coggins. Unless Maldonado or any of the party-line nominees voted out on 5/9 have any support from Collins or Murkowski (I doubt Ali, Sooknanan, Kasubhai, or Russell will get any Republican votes), I wonder what will be lined up with Menendez out. There’s still Meriweather to confirm, but I wouldn’t be opposed to them using Menendez-less time confirming some of the DC Superior Court nominees, especially in light of the story recently posted here.

    Liked by 2 people

    • tsb1991's avatar

      I’d be surprised if it got anywhere near 60 votes, can’t imagine there being any appetite among Republicans to pass this (there’s a few Democrats opposed to the bill as well, which would raise the bar needed for Republican support to pass it). I’d just throw this vote into a timeslot that wouldn’t interfere with the cloture+confirmation window of a nominee (make it one of the two 11:30AM Thursday votes).

      We’ll see if any cloture motions get sent out tomorrow for Wednesday votes, they’d have until Tuesday for setting up Thursday votes.

      We won’t have any additional judges voted out of the SJC until 6/13 at the earliest, so the pending slate is what we have to work with for the time being.

      Liked by 1 person

  23. Zack's avatar

    @Dequan,
    As I’ve said before, Mangi’s nomination was left to linger too long when the WH should have known he was going to be a target from the right on day one.
    I just hope that doesn’t end up costing us control of the 3rd Circuit.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      So true. I really wish Schumer would schedule all circuit court nominees for votes the following week after they are voted out of the SJC. The only exception should be a week they are passing a must pass bill like the budget when the government is about to shut down or something on that level. Attendance issues should be the only other exception.

      Like

      • Frank's avatar

        There are other things more important than judges in keeping the government running efficiently, which Democrats care more about than Mitch McConnell. Not to mention, the votes may not be there to confirm the nominee so soon after the committee vote with some of the swing votes for a multitude of reasons. That being said, if it is somehow a judicial emergency or the nominee is easily confirmable (thinking Kolar here), than I agree more of a priority should be placed on getting them a quick confirmation vote. The amount of holds being placed by senators don’t help things as previously uncontroversial voice votes are now needing to be roll call votes in a lot of cases.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Correct. That’s why I wrote “The only exception should be a week they are passing a must pass bill like the budget when the government is about to shut down or something on that level.” But there should be few & far in between exceptions.

        As for the votes not being there right after the SJC vote, that’s why you Whip votes during the confirmation process. There’s little that will change a no to a yes as time goes on so that’s why you get 50 yes votes lined up by the time the nominee is voted out of the SJC. Mangi has looked to have lost votes since the SJC vote.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        It’s not so much we don’t agree executive nominees aren’t important. The disagreement is with less than 6 months until a presidential election where Biden & senate Democrats could both lose, they shouldn’t be prioritized ahead of lifetime appointments to the judiciary. All the executive nominees that are confirmed in this time could be out of a job before the next Super Bowl. So yes I think lifetime appointments should be confirmed first thus close to an election.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Frank's avatar

        With all due respect, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Abudu was originally announced as a nominee in late 2021 and officially sent to the Senate in January 2022. She wasn’t confirmed until May 2023, more than 12 months after her committee hearing and almost 18 months after she was originally announced as a nominee. I wouldn’t call that “much delay” personally. I do agree she was definitely carrying quite a bit of baggage but to pretend like she waltzed in without a hitch is ludicrous.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Frank's avatar

        I never said that nominee was in trouble, I merely pointed out that it took almost 18 months for Abudu to get a confirmation vote, which isn’t fast even in this era (never mind for previous generations). 17 circuit court nominees announced after Abudu received confirmation votes before she did. Joe may be right that she may have had the votes in late 2022 had the vote occurred then, but since a vote never took place then we can’t say that for sure. As far as nominees who were confirmed quickly despite having quite a bit of baggage, I would point you to Jennifer Sung, who only needed about 5 months to be confirmed.

        Liked by 2 people

  24. Joe's avatar

    I wouldn’t quite go that far, Abudu did languish for 16 months and was stuck in committee for all of 2022.

    She probably would have been confirmed with Manchin supporting in December 2022 if it was truly necessary, but there was still a fair amount of suspense.

    The Nevada thing is strange to me, though. I guess Rosen just really wants to show she’s “bipartisan”. It’s a strange fight to pick though.

    Liked by 2 people

    • tsb1991's avatar

      There’s a chance this week we get nominations, since it would allow for a second hearing in June before they take off for 4th of July. It would be during the week of Juneteenth, which falls on a Wednesday, so any hearing would likely be on Thursday. While we typically we new nominees on Wednesday we might get nominees on Thursday this week.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Ads's avatar

        I’ve been meaning to ask. Is there some kind of mandated time between judges being officially nominated and their SJC hearings? I’ve been seeing comments in this forum about the need to get nominations in by a certain date in order for it to even be possible to have hearings on them some weeks later. Does this mean that hearing dates are set in stone and can’t be scheduled and/or adjusted by the committee chair? Why is that? Seems like unnecessary inflexibility. But since most in this forum seem to already know how this works, I’d appreciate the education. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Ads

        No problem. I think when they say we need nominees by a certain date, that is because there is a waiting period (I believe it’s a minimum of 28 days) from the time the president announces nominees until they can have a SJC hearing. So for example, if the President announced a new batch of nominees on June 1st, the earliest they can have their hearing is June 28th by rule of the SJC.

        Using that same example, if the senate was on recess the week of June 28th, then it would matter if the nominees came June 1st or June 8th, since the SJC almost never holds hearings on recess weeks (Republicans did but I’ve never seen Democrats do it).

        As to you next question, no these rules are not set in stone. They can be changed with a majority vote. The thing about that is the senate is steeped in tradition. So a lot of things the majority can change by a majority, they don’t because they don’t want to have to follow those rules when they are in the minority. So in theory, Democrats on the SJC can vote to waive the 28-day rule & using my example above, you can have a hearing on June 2nd. But it is highly unlikely they would vote to do that, so it is de facto set in stone.

        Cloture motions are similar. Let’s say Schumer finds out that 5 Republicans are out today. He just can’t confirm Mangi today. He would need to send the cloture motion today. It would ripen in 48 hours so they can vote on the cloture motion on Wednesday the earliest. Then they would need to wait 30 hours if Republicans didn’t agree to cut the time which means his confirmation vote wouldn’t be until Thursday.

        Liked by 3 people

      • tsb1991's avatar

        The one time I remember Democrats holding a recess hearing was in October of 2022. The calendar did they they’d be in for two weeks but they cancelled it to give them the month off for campaigning, as is generally the case in both midterm and presidential election cycles. I believe Johnstone had his hearing that day and I think Democrats said they held the hearing to make up for having to use a hearing week for when KBJ was nominated to SCOTUS.

        Liked by 1 person

  27. Mitch's avatar

    Seth Aframe is on his way to the First Circuit. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski made that happen. Time will only tell what Collins got in return.

    IMHO, there are four nominees who will have to withdraw. Adeel Manti is the most obvious. I also predict that Mustafa Kasubhai, Sarah Russell, and Rebecca Kantor also don’t have the votes.

    Some here wonder about Amir Ali? I expect that he’ll be be confirmed by a narrow margin, perhaps with the VP breaking a tie vote.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      I think Mangi is the one most likely not to be confirmed because he doesn’t have the votes. I don’t think Rebecca Kanter will be confirmed but not because she doesn’t have the votes, but rather for whatever reason she hasn’t had her hearing yet.

      I doubt Democrats will want to be seen a killing two Muslim nominees in the same year so I think Mustafa Kasubhai will eventually get confirmed. Sarah Russell is likely to be confirmed albeit after a long wait.

      Liked by 1 person

    • tsb1991's avatar

      Lanham will be confirmed tomorrow. Nothing mentioned of Martinez but since her cloture motion ripens tomorrow there could be a cloture vote then, but nothing mentioned of a time agreement.

      We still have tomorrow for cloture motions for Thursday. Decent chance one of them is for the border bill, best-case scenario is we get cloture on Maldonado tomorrow.

      The other thing the Senate will be voting on sometime this week is a CRA disapproval resolution from Cruz, so that will be squeezed onto the calendar somewhere.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Mike's avatar

      I think with her that’s all the current nominees who got bipartisan votes on the judiciary committee.

      I was hoping one of the usual 3 would vote for the others so Manchin votes Yes too but if they’re bringing up a random Air Force officer vote then maybe not.

      It’ll be really annoying if 8 nominees are stuck until Menendez vote goes through.

      Liked by 1 person

  33. Mike S.'s avatar

    So far Menendez being out hasn’t been too terrible. I still wish his trial was held in August while the Senate was in recess, but you play the hand you’re dealt.

    I remember reading on this blog folks saying it was unlikely Aframe would ever get confirmed, and in the end he was confirmed with votes to spare. An important reminder the successful confirmation of these nominees is dependent upon a number of circumstances not always known or clear.

    If we do get nominees this week… maybe the 1st Circ. for Maine? E.D.P.A. nominees seem overdue. Maybe N.C.?

    Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        For Vermont, out of the three recommendations I think if this vacancy had been before the midterms, Jessica Brown would have been the pick. A 53-year-old Black woman that I believe would be the state’s first person of color on the federal bench & super progressive would have been straight out of central casting for Biden 2021 & 2022.

        But with the environment we are in now so close to the election & Manchin’s pledge, I just don’t see her being the pick. So I’m hoping for Steven Barth. He’s 49 & has been a federal defender for almost a decade & a half.

        I just don’t want them to go with Michael Drescher. He is the safest choice so I’m afraid they might. In addition to him being 58, he doesn’t seem too progressive at all.

        Liked by 1 person

  34. Dequan's avatar

    I truly wish Schumer had set up Aframe & Ritz back to back. I would have loved nothing more than to see Blackburn’s reaction as her two most recent most fake outraged attacked nominees got confirmed back to back.

    That dream could have only been topped off by Biden announcing Steven Ross Johnson, Maha Ayesh or Dumaka Shabazz as the nominee for the other 6th vacancy later this week. Blackburn would probably pass out on the senate floor had all three of those things happened this week… Lol

    Liked by 2 people

  35. tsb1991's avatar

    I guess Schumer did announce he’s filing cloture on the border bill tomorrow, so that would set it up for a Thursday vote. As I said, I hope that gets relegated to one of the morning votes and we get a second cloture vote on a nomination (Maldonado as I said) to go with it. Surely there’s a few Republicans looking to escape town for Memorial Day before the afternoon and not be bottled up in the Capitol on a beautiful end-of-May day, no?

    The Tuesday afternoon schedule is completely blank after the Martinez cloture vote. Either an agreement comes together to confirm Martinez tomorrow or maybe they vote on that CRA resolution (there’s a UC agreement to have it voted on by a certain date, it’s in that “Calendar of Business” that is effectively the legislative calendar for the Senate). In the latter scenario, Wednesday would be to vote to confirm Martinez, cloture+confirm Coggins, and then cloture and possibly confirm the Pentagon nominee.

    On the First Circuit, Biden has now appointed 2/3 of that entire court, and hopefully nominee #5 to that court comes this week. Living under the First Circuit, I got my appeals court judges (and a few MA district court judges to boot), so that’s my ringing endorsement of the President and the Democratic Senate Majority.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ryan J's avatar

      There is also only one actual vacancy on the circuit courts: Joseph Greenaway’s seat on the 3rd circuit. All of the other vacancies are either end-of-year vacancies or conditioned on confirmation of a successor. If they had to keep the blue slip rule, Senate Democrats have done the best they can.

      Liked by 1 person

  37. Joe's avatar

    Yes, I don’t think we’ll get a GA nominee until probably this fall. Which is fine. Should be plenty of time for that seat to be filled.

    Once we start getting vacancies announced in July and certainly August I think it gets a lot hairier.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to tsb1991 Cancel reply