Judge Joseph Saporito – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

A fixture of the Luzerne County legal community, Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Saporito is President Biden’s third nominee to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Background

A native of Pittston Pennsylvania, where he was born in 1960, Saporito received a B.A. from Villanova University in 1982 and a J.D. from Dickinson School of Law in 1985. He then spent two years as his father’s office as an Associate before moving to a joint practice, where he stayed for 28 years. Saporito also spent thirty years as a part-time assistant public defender in Wilkes-Barre.

In 2015, Saporito became a U.S. Magistrate Judge with the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where he currently serves as Chief Magistrate.

History of the Seat

Saporito has been nominated to replace Judge Malachy Mannion, who moved to senior status on January 3, 2024.

Legal Experience

Saporito has spent his entire legal career in practice in Luzerne County, practicing both civil and criminal law. Among the cases he handled, Saporito represented a cabinetmaker who sued the Town of Exeter in seeking permission to use his property for his business. See Scalzo v. Twp. of Exeter, No. 4:96-cv-01760 (M.D. Pa. filed Sept. 27, 1996). On the criminal side, Saporito represented an individual charged with possession with intent to distribute ecstasy, who was acquitted after a jury trial. See Commonwealth v. Singer, No. 1893 of 2001 (Luzerne Cnty. (Pa.) Ct. Com. Pl.).

Additionally, Saporito also served as a part-time assistant public defender between 1985 and 2015 in Luzerne County. Among his notable cases in this role, Saporito secured an acquittal for a defendant charged with assaulting a homeless man. See Commonwealth v. Geasey, No. 1656 of 2009 (Lucerne Cnty. (Pa.) Ct. Com. Pl.).

Judicial Experience

From 2015, Saporito has served as a federal magistrate judge. As a magistrate judge, Saporito handles arraignments and bail decisions, as well as presiding over cases where parties consent. As a magistrate judge, Saporito has presided over 14 jury trials and two bench trials. Among these trials, Saporito presided over a medical negligence trial regarding the misdiagnosis of an ankle fracture as a sprain. See Hunter v. Kennedy, No. 3:17-cv-00007 (M.D. Pa.).

Among the notable opinions that Saporito has authored, he ruled that qualified immunity required dismissal of a lawsuit brought by a student who was injured while in gym class without appropriate protective equipment. See Cuvo v. Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist., 2022 WL 836821 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 21, 2022). Saporito’s decision was affirmed on appeal. See Cuvo v. Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist., 2023 WL 4994527 (3d Cir. Aug. 4, 2023).

Political Activity

Saporito has donated extensively throughout until his ascension to the bench, giving mostly to Pennsylvania Democrats. Saporito has donated particularly frequently to Sen. Bob Casey, giving approximately $3000-4000 to his campaigns.

Overall Assessment

With a decade on the bench and an additional three decades in practice, Saporito approaches the federal bench with an extensive record. However, there is little in Saporito’s record that is likely to ignite controversy, and, as such, he is favored to gain a lifetime appointment by the end of the year.

107 Comments

    • My God, Judge Noël Wise is around 57 years old. I’m happy she had an environmental background but you can find a progressive environmental attorney in the San Francisco area that is in their late 30’s or early 40’s blindfolded. Definitely a lackluster batch today.

      I guess if Maldonado is confirmed in the next few weeks they can add April Perry at the SJC hearing along with these three. I’m not sure what’s going on with the SDCA. There’s a vacancy they can’t seem to find a nominee for & they haven’t officially withdrawn Katner yet whose nomination clearly isn’t going anywhere at this point.

      Like

      • You probably won’t see a 30 something or many barely 40’s nominees. They have to pass a screening committee of experienced lawyers who won’t look kindly on nominees who lack experience.

        Why would anyone put themself in a position to elevate someone with less experience to evaluate their work product.

        It’s not gonna happen.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Some of Biden’s finest nominees have been in their late 30’s & early 40’s. Rachel Bloomekatz & Brad Garcia are just two of the circuit court nominees in their 30’s when Biden announced them & they had terrific careers prior. California had over 40 million people. It should be rather easy to find some under 45.

        Like

  5. Always fun to get a new batch of nominations.

    By my count there are now just 10 vacancies that I expect to be filled this term.

    3rd CCA

    4th CCA

    ED PA

    SD CA

    CD CA

    ND NY

    CD IL

    D Arizona

    ND GA

    MD PA

    There is also the New Mexico vacancy that was discussed yesterday, but won’t be open until a potential second Biden term. There is also the possibility of new nominees for Mangi’s and Kanter’s seats.

    I count only four more potential hearing dates the rest of the year: one in late July, two in September, and then a last one in November.

    I would expect the next batch on either June 26 or July 3.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’m surprised we didn’t get a CD IL nom in this batch since it’s been ~2 months since Durbin and Duckworth submitted their recs. Prob in the next batch.

      Am also wondering where that last AZ nom is since their interview process was so long ago.

      There was also that article last month in The Advocate where there was a quote about at least 1 LGBT person being in the vetting process. I haven’t seen any indications that that person is a part of today’s batch (although I haven’t looked too much).

      The NDGA, MDPA, EDPA would all be too recent to have a person in the vetting process at the time of that article. We can also rule out CDIL bc we have a list of names there. I guess that means that the LGBT candidate is either one of the Circuit seats, one of the California seats, Arizona, or NDNY. (Worth noting that CA and AZ are 2 of the few states that have LGBT Senators).

      I don’t think we’ve really mentioned many LGBT candidates for these seats, so I’m wondering if there’s a candidate we’re missing.

      Liked by 1 person

      • None of the CDIL recommendations were LGBT. So yea most likely the person the article mentioned that was being vetted will be from CA or the final Arizona nominee. Perhaps somebody close to Sinema or Butler since it will likely be their last recommendation before leaving the senate.

        Like

      • Yes, if I had to guess the next batch will probably include the 4th circuit nominee and CD IL is another good bet. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were nominees to the last two CA seats as well.

        I’m not sure what’s going on in Arizona. I’m sure they are on it though. The vacancy isn’t until October so maybe they are just going slower on that one.

        The GA and PA seats I expect to be a little while.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Joseph Saporito is a longtime friend of the Casey family, so this nomination isn’t a surprise. He may face a lot of questions in the confirmation hearing. Lots of nominees have made a few campaign donations, but few have done so on this scale.

    Liked by 1 person

    • He had his SJC hearing already. There were more jokes about his high school memories about Senator Casey than about any of his donations. He will likely be confirmed with at least a few GOP votes. The man is 64, it’s the best Republicans can hope for in a blue state outside of New Jersey where getting a Republican is possible.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I don’t think that’s what the article is saying.

        The argument was not that Sotomayor and/or Kagan are incompetent or at risk of dying, but rather that we should be looking at these as positions that are filled for a certain period of time and then once a favorable environment comes along Justices should cycle out to similar like minded judges. In other words, the stakes are too high to let it be about any one individual juror and the goal should never be to serve as long as possible to stay on the court to set records like Ginsburg tried to do.

        Liked by 2 people

      • @Joe

        I’ll concede I didn’t read the article (at work right now). But at the end of the day, keeping Justices on the Court with a certain philosophy is what we want. As long as Kagan has no health issues, she can easily stay on the Court another 15 years (she’s not even 65 yet).

        You’ll never find a person more willing to trash Ginsburg than me. In light of her age, pancreatic cancer diagnosis AND political precedent (in 2014, the Dems had had the Senate for 6 years; another 2 was very unlikely, and Obama was in his second term; it is rare for one party to hold the White House 3 terms in a row), RBG’s conduct was EXCEEDINGLY vainglorious, foolish…and very much to the detriment of the causes that she championed.

        Even with Sotomayor, if her health is of greater than minimal concern, I can see a plausible argument for her to step down. But Kagan? She’s good for another 15 years barring anything unexpected…regardless of how many years she’s already been on the Court.

        Now if we’re worried about Trump getting into office and simply refusing to leave thereby putting him in position to appoint Kagan’s replacement 10+ years from now, we’ll have way bigger problems which won’t be solved by a younger Justice than Kagan being on the Court.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Yeah I’m not necessarily calling on Kagan to step down either. Was just restating the arguments in the article.

        To be honest it’ll probably end up being fine if both stay on the court for another 4 or 8 or even 12 years. But “probably” isn’t 100% either, which is why I’d breathe a sigh of relief to see one of them step down for someone 20 years younger.

        Liked by 2 people

      • @Frank calling other people hacks? Pot, meet kettle.

        The judiciary has already been destroyed by you and your fellow right-wing nutjobs, Frank – Thomas’s and Alito’s continued presence just underscore what an utter joke SCOTUS has become.

        It’s completely fair to ask a 65-year-old to consider stepping down – that’s the age when regular Americans without god complexes retire, and it’s also when other federal judges can take senior status. Kagan might not have health issues for the next 10ish years (or longer, given the Dems’ disadvantage in the senate), but the price of us being wrong about that means a Justice James Ho or Amul Thapar. I see no reason to take that risk, especially when another liberal judge can do Kagan’s job just as well as she can with lower risks. Judges are not irreplaceable gods, so they need to stop acting like they are.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. I’ve been holding out hope that she’ll announce a retirement once the term ends….I think that’s probably very unlikely at this point, though. I would certainly be a boost to the judiciary and also probably help Biden/Senate Dems.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Oh. I spoke too soon. We did get our LGBT nominee today.

    “She and her spouse have two young children and reside in Philadelphia…If confirmed, Costello will be the twelfth openly LGBTQ+ judge appointed by President Biden”

    Something interesting is that her military career would have taken place in the pre-“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” era, which would have been an especially hard time to serve.

    https://www.politicspa.com/costello-nominated-to-u-s-district-court-for-eastern-pa/135953/

    Liked by 1 person

      • Oh, this group is gonna have a spicy confirmation hearing.

        “Provinzino had at one time served as the president of the Infinity Project, a group that advocates for gender equity and increased diversity on the bench and receives financial support from the George Soros-founded Open Society Foundations”

        “Wise has written opinion pieces taking stances on matters of public discussion, including LGBTQ rights, diversity and homelessness…..

        In a 2017 piece in Time, Wise wrote that the country’s ‘stringent adherence to a two-sex paradigm is inconsistent with science and incongruous with the historic and modern understanding of sex throughout many regions of the world.'”

        Liked by 1 person

  10. None of the judges from today’s batch announcement were on my radar. Here is who I would pick for each of the above mentioned vacancies that don’t require a blue slip:

    3rd CCA: Abigail LeGrow.

    4th CCA: Ryan Park.

    EDPA: Susan M. Lin.

    SDCA: Armilla Staley-Ngomo.

    CDCA: Vibhav Mittal.

    NDNY: Rajit Dosanjih.

    CDIL: Jonathan Hawley.

    NDGA: Sean J. Young.

    AZ: Karen Smith.

    MDPA: Heidi Freese.

    NM: Shammara Henderson.

    Liked by 3 people

    • @Ethan

      Great list. I’ll post my first choice for each after your picks…

      3rd CCA: Abigail LeGrow….. Christopher Howland or Alexander Mackler

      4th CCA: Ryan Park….. Allison Riggs (Although sine she’s running for re-election on the SCOT-NC. Ryan Park is my second choice

      EDPA: Susan M. Lin….. Nilam Sanghvi, Sandra Mayson, Jasmine Harris & Susan Lin

      SDCA: Armilla Staley-Ngomo….. I agree with Ethan

      CDCA: Vibhav Mittal….. Bryant Yang

      NDNY: Rajit Dosanjih… Not enough data for me to answer unless I can move duty stations.

      CDIL: Jonathan Hawley… Mohammed Ahmed. Jonathan Hawley would be my second pick though.

      NDGA: Sean J. Young… ***FULL DISCLOSURE*** I emailed my first choice Fred Smith Jr. a few weeks ago. I introduced myself & told him about the blog here. I encouraged him to apply for this seat. He emailed me back a few days later & said he was honored I would take the time to write & encourage him. He even said Steve Jones was one of his mentors. He did say however this is not the right time in his life to be considered for this position so he will not be applying. I replied I appreciate him taking the time out of his schedule to read, let alone reply back to me & wished him well in his future.

      AZ: Karen Smith….. Jessica Hernandez, Justin Pidot & Jared Keenan

      MDPA: Heidi Freese….. Christopher Sherwood & Heidi Freese

      NM: Shammara Henderson….. I agree with Ethan

      Like

      • @Gavi

        Not sure if you or anybody knows the answer to this but curious. The article says “No circuit approval needed to change court locations”. I know when I mentioned my dream scenario of Nancy Abudu moving her chambers to Florida so Biden could nominate a Georgia nominee to the 11th with Ossoff & Warnock instead of a Florida nominee with Rubio & Scott, it was mentioned she would need approval to move her chambers to another state.

        Is that a rule each circuit has or a circuit wide rule? I doubt Biden would ever play hardball in such a manner anyway, but I was just curious. If you or anybody knows the answer, I would appreciate it.

        Like

      • I’m pretty sure the request needs either the court’s chief’s approval or the circuit council’s. H. Lee Sarokin tried to do the same thing, albeit a transfer to within another circuit entirely (from NJ to San Francisco). But I would think the process is the same. Sarokin’s request was famously and embarrassingly denied. Unless circuits deal with chambers transfer requests differently.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Gavi

        Thanks. That’s what I thought as well. I’m not sure why the article said it wasn’t needed here. I may read up more into the actual wording of the rule when I get some time. I’m a lot more interested in this answer than I probably should be but that’s the life of a judicial geek I guess… Lol

        Like

      • Southwick is actually one of the more moderate members of the 5th Circuit. There are 10 judges to the right of him. While still leaning to the right, he’s actually been a lot more of a reasonable judge that the record he had when he was a nominee. He’s sided with criminal defendants, plaintiffs, and civil rights groups well more than I would have expected in 2007.

        Liked by 1 person

    • I know what the answer is (because the judiciary has no oversight!), but it’s crazy to me that this sort of thing is allowed. So the people of Mississippi just lose an judge because he wants to be closer to his family? In other words defendants and victims are denied justice because of the wishes and comfort of a 74 year old?

      A sane congress would authorize a new judgeship for Mississippi and let the next Texas seat go unfilled, but we all know that isn’t happening.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I’m no fan of a staunch conservative like Southwick, but even I don’t think this amounts to any controversy. As I’ve mentioned before, Dem-appointed judge McKeown did the same thing when she moved from Seattle to San Diego.

        The “people of Mississippi” didn’t lose a judge because Southwick moved his chambers to Texas – he is still a “Mississippi judge” given that his pre-bench career was in MS, it was the MS senators who signed off on him, he’ll still be providing a “MS perspective” on cases (to the extent such a thing exists), and he’s still going to be going to New Orleans to actually hear cases. MS would only “lose” a seat if Southwick’s replacement were to come from Texas—something the MS senators would likely oppose, even if it was a Republican WH nominating his replacement.

        This is why Dequan’s pipe dream of Abudu moving to FL makes no sense – she could move just as McKeown and Southwick have, but how exactly would that create another vacancy for the GA senators to fill? It’s basic math: there are 12 seats on CA11, Martin retiring opened up 1 of those 12 seats, and Abudu was nominated to fill that seat and bring it back to 12. Abudu moving to Florida doesn’t suddenly create a new vacancy unless she were to resign from active service or take senior status (which she isn’t eligible to do yet).

        Now had Wilson taken senior status before Abudu was confirmed, the WH could have withdrawn her nomination to the GA seat and nominated her instead to the FL seat, which would have let the GA senators fill another seat—but Wilson had not announced his intent to take senior status at that time, so there was no FL vacancy for Abudu to be nominated to.

        The statute only requires that each state have at least 1 seat on the federal circuit covering that state. The WH could theoretically threaten the NC senators and say that they’ll just nominate someone from VA to fill Wynn’s seat, but they’re unlikely to break the tradition of seats “belonging” to certain states (which really just means which states’ senators get to play a part in the selection process). Even the Trump WH didn’t threaten to move appellate court seats from one state to another (largely because that would piss off conservative lawyers/Fed Soc members in whichever state would “lose” the seat, as those lawyers would miss a chance for a lifetime position—and also because without blue slips, it’s not like 2 Dem senators could block anything).

        Liked by 3 people

      • Circuit court case assignments are not based on which state the judge is from. A Texas judge can hear cases that came out of Mississippi. Panels are randomly assigned cases, a panel can have judges from different states and also hear cases arising out of different states.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Southwick’s move is not going to affect which cases he gets. As Hank mentioned, Southwick can still travel to hear cases, or hear them virtually if he can’t or won’t. Ronald Gould hears cases virtually from his place in Washington as his disability makes it hard for him to travel, but like any circuit judge, Gould hears cases that arise out of various states and with judges from various states.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Hank

        I believe you are wrong buddy. Now I admit my Nancy Abudu scenario wasn’t going to happen but not because it couldn’t happen. Just because we know Biden wouldn’t do it.

        But he most certainly COULD do it if he wanted to & if the senate would confirm the Georgia nominee. How do we know this? Because it just happened two years ago… Lol

        A 2nd circuit court judge retired who was seated in New York. Both New York senators agreed to move that seat to Connecticut because of past movement of the seat. But let’s just say in my scenario we know the Florida senators would not agree to the Abudu move. Who cares as long as 50 senators plus the VP would vote to confirm the Georgia nominee. There’s nothing in the law preventing my scenario. It’s just tradition (Which I respect).

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Dequan I’m not following – when Abudu took Martin’s seat, the vacancy was filled and the 11th Circuit had 12 active judges. That’s the maximum number of seats for the 11th under federal law. How could the admin or the GA senators nominate someone else in addition to Abudu? You can’t nominate 2 people for 1 vacancy.

        The Second Circuit example you are referring to is Cabranes retiring. That created one vacancy, which the NY/CT senators discussed and ultimately decided should go to CT. Therefore, one person—Maria Kahn—got the nomination. If Maria Kahn were to move to NY tomorrow, the CT senators wouldn’t get to nominate another person because she’d still be an active judge.

        Simply put, vacancies only arise if an active judge dies, retires, or takes senior status. Moving to a state is not one of those things, so neither Southwick’s move to Texas or a hypothetical Abudu move to Florida creates a vacancy for anyone to fill. This is judicial nominations 101.

        Liked by 1 person

      • No, I at no point suggested adding a seat to the 11th. My dream hypothetical (Prior to the Emory Kidd nomination which I am happy about) was if the administration wanted to play hardball, they could have Nancy Abudu move her chambers from Georgia to Florida. That way Biden could nominate a Georgia nominee to fill Wilson’s seat despite him being from Florida. It would be the exact same thing that happened 2 years ago with the 2nd circuit seat moving from New York to Connecticut with the exception of 2 of the 4 senators involved would be against it.

        @Gavi said Biden would never do that. I agreed with that, which is why I called it a dream scenario, I thought you were saying it CAN’T happen which is a major difference from it WON’T happen. If I misunderstood you & you were saying the same thing @Gavi was saying then we all are in agreement. If you are saying Abudu couldn’t move her chambers from Georgia to Florida which would then allow Biden to nominate a Georgia attorney, then I revert back to what I wrote above.

        Now if we want to take it a step further & Biden REALLY wanted to play hardball, even if Abudu didn’t move her chambers to Florida, Biden still could have just nominated a Georgia attorney. As long as Florida had at least one circuit court judge, Biden doesn’t have to keep the Wilson seat in Florida regardless of Abudu moving or not.

        But once again I am not in anyway suggesting Biden would do any of that. Just saying hypothetical he could… Lol

        Like

    • Thank you for posting – the fact that we have not a comprehensive judiciary bill since the early 1990s is just disgraceful. The Eastern District, and many other judicial districts, desperately need new judges. The fact that it isn’t happening is mind-boggling. This is just another reason why I could never vote for a Republican for the US Senate. The vast majority of the Republican party (save a few senators) see no issue with holding the judiciary hostage at the expense of the American people (see, for example, the last two years of the Obama presidency).

      Liked by 2 people

  13. I’m learning about Laura Provinzino. Her claim to fame is prosecuting  Anton Lazzaro, known in some quarters as the Jeffrey Epstein of Minnesota.

    Provinzino was once President of the Infinity Project, a non profit calling for more diversity on the Eighth Circuit Court The Infinity Project is funded by George Soros. Expect to hear about that in the confirmation hearing.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Since the SJC hearing for today’s nominees would likely be on July 10th, Maldonado would need to be confirmed by next week to get April Perry in that hearing. The senate is in recess the two weeks after next. Technically I guess they could confirm her on Monday, July 8th & send Perry’s name that same day but they didn’t do that with the de Alba confirmation & Kirk Sherrif nomination in the same scenario so it’s most likely next week or Perry will miss that hearing.

      Any word on the Menedez trial? It has to be coming to an end soon no?

      Like

  15. Given that this administration is big on nominating “firsts” from a diversity perspective, I’m surprised that he has not tried to nominate a transgendered judge. I would expect that person to be conventional in their career, not from an activist group of any nature.
    Who fits that criterion? I can’t think of anyone off the top of my head.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. On the topic of tomorrow’s business meeting, I saw Butler wasn’t in attendance today (she tested positive for COVID earlier in the week). If she’s not around tomorrow then it’ll be interesting to see which judges are able to be voted out. Netburn at a minimum will be party-line, Neumann should get at least get Graham if Collins is supporting her, so the question would be if any of the CDCA nominees would be party-line, pretty hard to tell since all the fire at that hearing was directed at Netburn. Even if Neumann was somehow party-line in committee she should still be able to get confirmed without Menendez.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. I see Mitch McConnell was at it again yesterday name checking Biden judicial nominees on the senate floor. I’ll put the link below & he starts around the 28 minute mark. He starts off by reminding everybody he’s against the Mangi & Maldonado nominations.

    He then goes on the attack against Sparkle Sooknanan. He used the Puerto Rico debt issue as his attack line. He mentioned a Democrat House member who came out against her nomination but he didn’t say who. I wasn’t aware of that.

    On another unrelated issue, I see Senator Warren changed her votes today on both nominees that were voted on. I know they weren’t judicial nominees but was curious if anybody knew why she changed her vote on both.

    (https://www.c-span.org/congress/?chamber=senate&date=2024-06-11)

    Like

      • @Frank

        Thank you. I missed that posting by you but appreciate you reposting it.

        @Gavi

        Exactly. That’s what my dream scenario was, not adding a seat to the 11th. But as I & you both said, my hypothetical was pre-Kidd because we weren’t sure what kind of Florida nominee we would get. As for your reply to McConnell’s comments, I think you are spot on (Unfortunately). I have more hope it wont work in Collins & Murkowski than I do Manchin not falling for it.

        Update on the SJC executive meeting going on right now. They are talking about the additional judgeship bill right now. Senator Whitehouse just called out Cornyn & Cruz. He said he’s all for adding judgeships but wishes Republican senators would fill the current vacancies they have like the five vacancies currently in Texas. Overall the senators sounded receptive to the new bill except Grassley. He said he has some concerns about the bill adds too many judgeships.

        Like

  19. Hank and Dequan, just got a chance to read your comments. I think you’re both talking past each other. Dequan is fantasizing about the near-impossible situation of Abudu transferring her chambers to a FL court and *if/when* an actual FL vacancy arise on CA11, Biden, with the help of the GA senators, would pick a Georgian for that seat. Hank is highlighting that Adubu’s transfer would not itself create a vacancy on the court. Dequan isn’t saying that, though. In Dequan’s dream (prior to Kidd), if Adubu’s transfer were to happen, the Wilson vacancy would be filled by a Georgian for a GA duty station.

    And Joe, the people of MS wouldn’t be losing a judge with Southwick’s transfer. He’d still be on panels concerning cases from that state.

    @Jamie, conservative v moderate v liberal is super subjective, but it’s a bridge too far for me to think of Southwick as a moderate. Again, he’s not a James Ho, but in my opinion, he’s no moderate, even if, like a broken clock, he gets a couple decisions right. Thomas just wrote the majority opinion for the CFPB and Sotomayor just wrote the unanimous opinion for the NRA. Their rulings in those cases don’t suddenly scramble their well-known ideology.

    Another thing worth clearing up is the misperception that circuit judges have to hear cases at the actual circuit courthouse. They do not. They often sit at the most convenient location for 2 or more members of the panel. So AZ and NV judges don’t have to travel to San Francisco every time they need to hear cases. En banc sittings, however, usually occur at the circuit courthouse.

    Mitch McConnell’s strategy on judges from here on out is coming into focus: Muddy the water and controversialize as many nominees as possible in an effort to get Collins and Murk to vote against them, and with them, Manchin. This makes the nominees that much harder to confirm. I’m afraid this might be an effective strategy. We’ll see.

    Liked by 3 people

      • Ok the SJC meeting has ended. The additional judgeship bill passed unanimously after some back & forth.

        Senator Cornyn responded directly to Senator Whitehouse about them having five pending vacancies in Texas but wanting to add additional seats. He said him & Cruz have interviewed & recommended names to the WH for the McAllen (Sorry if I’m spelling that wrong) seat but they haven’t yet come to an agreement. He said he is going to vote for the bill today with the caveat that Durbin stays committed to not eliminating blue slips if Democrats stay in the majority.

        Liked by 2 people

      • That’s good news on the judicial bill.

        Also maybe some good news on a Texas nominee. To be honest, at this point as long as the recommendations from the TX senators aren’t total hacks, I think the WH should take the win and pick one and try to get them confirmed.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I disagree with you Joe. I think your idea of a good/decent/acceptable, etc. nominee is waay to the right/too old for most of the rest of us. The fact that the WH hasn’t accepted those recs is probably a good indication that they are terrible candidates since this WH is more than willing to accept really bad recs. Otherwise, the WH would take the win. If you think that Cruz and Coryn are tripping over themselves to get a Dem president to nominate acceptable judges in their state this close to the election, then I have multiple bridges to sell you.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Additionally, McAllen is one of five vacancies, so as previously said, Cornyn and Cruz seem to leave the big cities (Dallas, Austin, El Paso and Houston) open and just fill the smaller ones.

        And although I’m far away from being a fan of these two guys, that’s more than most of their collegues did, who have not even been able to agree on a single US Marshal or an US Attorney in their states.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Thomas

        That’s what really pisses me off about blue slips. I’m fine with somebody like Graham keeping the recently announced South Carolina vacancy open until after the election. He has worked in good faith filling a circuit & a district court vacancy in his state, voting for both Black Roman who are Democrats.

        I don’t think senators should be able to keep their blue slip privileges if they are clearly not working in good faith. After 3 & a half years, if you haven’t agreed to a US Attorney, district court judge & now signed that letter a couple weeks ago saying you are going to black all nominations & legislation, you don’t deserve blue slips in my opinion.

        Like

      • I have never been a staunch supporter of the Blue Slip, but on the other hand, much folks here have always said, no floor time for judges in Red States, absolute priority on Blue States, not a single FedSoc hack at the SDNY. As result we have now almost no appointments at district courts in these states.

        If you have noticed, that some senators are not working in good faith, conditions had to be changed early enough to fill them, as I think in turn, having at least moderate judges at the district courts in Alabama is better than one or two FedSoc hacks at the SDNY, as most of these have been appointed in Red States.

        I would also have focused more on states with an old or otherwise unstable bench like the EDWI, with now the longest open vacancy at a district court, and nobody would deny that Johnson has more than exhausted his using of the Blue Slip. But now this seat is still open and two judgs are far over eigthy years old.

        On the other side, NDNY with the same size wasn’t much difficult before Nardacci was confirmed, everybody there, except her, is 65+ years old, so the Democrats are not doing better sometimes.

        The need to fill vacancies in Red States should have started much earlier, but much folks were fine with filling Blue States vacancies and being ahead of Trump. I have not forgotten the absence problem, but now it’s pretty late and the motivation for the GOP Senators to fill the remaining vacancies is low.

        We all should not forget the challenges for the ordinary people waiting for years for their day in court as we could read yesterday. So I hope they pass the bill.

        But the Democratic majority was always slim in the last three and a half years, and now with Melendez and Manchin who are no more reliable, there are few options than trying to get the remaining circuit courts and the Blue district courts filled. Under these circumstances I think it’s a pretty bad idea to ask Sotomayor and Kagan for retiring that year.

        Liked by 1 person

    • I expected Butler’s absence but Hirono wasn’t present on the vote on the Judges bill either, not sure if she was present at the beginning of the hearing. Either every nominee (including Neumann, oddly) is going to be party-line or with two Democrats not present they couldn’t vote out any nominee with only one Republican vote.

      Considering next week’s meeting will likely be cancelled in favor of a nominations hearing (the hearing would have been to hold over the nominees on the 6/5 hearing), the next likely business meeting will be on 7/11, in which the 5/22 and 6/5 nominees could all be voted out and then the 6/20 nominees held over, allowing for a vote after the RNC break.

      Liked by 1 person

  22. As expected, both a nominations hearing and a business meeting have been posted for 6/20 for the SJC. As I mentioned, the business meeting likely gets cancelled for the nominations hearing but the nominees from the 6/5 hearing get held over, leading to a big batch to be voted out on 7/11.

    Being a Thursday there should be cloture motions sent out today, but likely for nothing exciting.

    Liked by 1 person

      • I think somebody mentioned Michael Simon’s wife is a Democrat lawmaker or something like that. Perhaps she can talk him into being a team player while there is still time. Nadia Dahab would be an A+ & Kevin Diaz wouldn’t be too far behind that if so.

        Like

    • That is terrific news. There are only three nominees left from last year so I’m happy to see one of them finally get a vote. Not to mention I like seeing judges on the same court get their commission in order of age (When they are all Democrat picks) so I want to see Kashibai get his commission before Baggio.

      I’m also happy the local DC judges are getting attention too. It’s still sad they need any floor time at all but it’s what it is. At least we will see some movement on judges before the two week recess begins.

      Like

  24. Surprised to see Kasubhai get lined up for a vote. That’s very encouraging to see. There was never anything particularly controversial about him, so perhaps they’ve managed to whip Collins or Murkowski into supporting.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. In other news today, the Senate Finance Committe voted out the Tax Court nominees by margins of 25-2, 25-2, and 26-1. Tim Scott, a potential Trump VP nominee, voted no on all three nominees while Blackburn was a No on one of them. If they get voice votes it’d be after the election, due to the blanket hold some Republicans have placed on most nominees through the election.

    Liked by 3 people

      • Unfortunately all the norms can be thrown out the window in this day & age. We are now taking roll call votes in 15 year termed DC Superior court nominees. We have senators recommending nominees only to turn around & block them once nominated.

        We even have a senate leader who has TWICE recommended another nominee for circuit court seats in states that have two senators of the opposite Party. I can totally see Tax Court nominees require senate floor time in this environment sadly.

        Liked by 1 person

  26. As far as the Senate agenda is concerned next week, what looks to be teed up for a vote:

    -Cloture/confirmation of a local DC judge
    -Cloture/confirmation of Kasubhai
    -Passage of a firefighters aid bill (looks like a straight up or down vote on passage and no procedural hurdles to clear)

    Question marks on the calendar next week:

    -Last week the Senate invoked cloture on an ambassador, but no confirmation vote has been scheduled. This could fill a voting slot next week.
    -Are there any messaging bills Schumer wants to tee up for next week? This week was IVF, last week was contraception, unless they want to hold a vote on an abortion bill.
    -If there are none, I’d hope Thursday could be finished up by voting for cloture on an appeals court nominee. Whatever whip count of support/option there is for Kashubai could apply to a Ritz or a Maldonado, no? Cruz was ready to go all ham on Kasubhai while Maldonado wasn’t pounded the same way.

    If I had an idea to modernize the Senate, in addition to showing active holds on nomination, it’d be nice to see whip counts on each nomination on the calendar.

    Liked by 2 people

  27. The Supreme Court just gave pro-choice advocates a victory. It unanimously upheld the right of the FDA to make the mifepristone pill more accessible. Even Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas supported it.

    It should be obvious that this is within the Federal government’s authority. I’m surprised the case was brought at all.

    Liked by 2 people

    • It was solely a decision on standing, and I’m not surprised that Thomas joined the decision. The reason why this case was brought was judge shopping, the anti-choicers had a extreme judicial activist in Judge  Matthew Kacsmaryk who greenlit every bogus argument made by the plaintiffs. The Fifth Circuit curtailed the worst of that ruling but still upheld much of it.  

      I expected a dissent from Alito, another clear judicial activist, who always finds a way to justify the worst outcomes with questionable legal analysis. I guess given all the scrutiny to his behavior he decided that this wasn’t the best time to showcase his hackery with a solo dissent.

      Liked by 2 people

      • I fear Jamie is right. I am a very big cynic when it comes to SCOTUS and I think if Biden is re elected that they will take up a similar case next year and rule it unconstitutional. If Trump is re elected then they will say his FDA head can ban it at his discretion.

        SCOTUS didn’t want to give Biden a huge gift like this in an election year.

        Liked by 2 people

      • That’s not what I said. I actually disagree with you strongly. Like the Obamacare cases, my feeling is that SCOTUS wants to wash its hands of this one. The opinion basically in clear terms told the anti-choicers to lobby elected officials on the abortion pill, not to come back to them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • This is also why I made my comment about Judge Southwick yesterday. He’s the kind of right of center judge who would not have entertained this kind of argument unlike several of the utter hacks on the 5th.
        I often find the conservatives on SCOTUS awful, but not all of them are at the same level as Sam Alito. He’s a complete and total hack, and if not for the recent scrutiny, he would have dissented.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Kacsmaryk being confirmed was a consequence of Republicans not only holding the Senate but gaining seats in 2018. I believe he was nominated in 2017 or 2018, but wasn’t confirmed until after Republicans had 53 Senate seats in 2019 (Collins was the only Republican voting no). Remember that even when the Senate was 51-49 Republican after the Doug Jones victory, Republicans for much of the Congress functioned with 50 seats as McCain was on his death bed (Cochran was also having health issues if I remember). He could have been confirmed in that Congress after Kyl was appointed to McCain’s seat but at that point you’d need perfect attendance and Pence in town to confirm (50-50 vote with Collins voting no).

        If 2018 had been played to a draw in the Senate that would have been huge. Getting to 53 seats gave Republicans a Collins/Murkowski-proof majority and some leeway on attendance (they’d need 6 members out just to force a tie with full Democratic attendance), and provided no obstacles for any nominations to get confirmed.

        Also, on the topic of SCOTUS giving the president a boost this election, there’s still two cases if I recall where a SCOTUS ruling could fire up Democratic voters. I believe there’s a case about an Idaho abortion law and if federal law allowing an abortion to be performed if it is threatening the life of the mother supersedes it, it sounds like SCOTUS may rule in Idaho’s favor and remind voters of how they ruled in Dobbs just two years ago. There’s also the Trump immunity case which could fire up Democratic voters in the likely event they rule that Republican Presidents are immune from the rule of law.

        Liked by 1 person

  28. I’m watching senator McConnell’s comments on the senate floor from this morning. He has now gone after a fourth nominee in as many weeks. Today he thrashed Sarah Netburn (But still found time to name drop Mangi). He went over the argument that occurred when senator Butler was the acting chairwoman with senators Kennedy & Cruz.

    McConnell then said the SJC has received over 100 letters against her nomination from liberal & progressive interest groups. Has anybody else heard about this? I haven’t even heard about one, let alone over 100.

    Like

Leave a comment