Mary Kay Costello – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

In a rush to fill as many vacancies as they can before the 2024 election, AUSA Mary Kay Costello has been nominated by the Biden Administration to fill the oldest pending vacancy in Pennsylvania.

Background

Born in 1968, Costello received a B.A. summa cum laude from Temple University in 1998 after eight years in the U.S. Air Force. Costello then received a J.D. from the Temple University Beasley School of Law in 2001. Costello then joined Saul Ewing LLP in Philadelphia. In 2004, Costello joined the Philadelphia office of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.

In 2008, Costello became an Assistant U.S. Attorney with the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where she has served since.

History of the Seat

Costello has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This seat opened on December 31, 2021, when Judge Cynthia Rufe moved to senior status.

Legal Experience

While Costello started her career in private practice, she has spent the largest portion of her career as a federal prosecutor. Costello started her time with the office prosecuting narcotics cases. See, e.g., United States v. Yokshan, 658 F. Supp. 2d 654 (E.D. Pa. 2009). In another notable case, Costello prosecuted violations of the Lacey Act, which bars the illegal trafficking of animals. See United States v. MacInnes, 23 F. Supp. 3d 536 (E.D. Pa. 2014).

Costello’s career also included arguing appeals before the Third Circuit. For example, Costello argued in favor of an inventory search of an automobile against a Fourth Amendment challenge. See United States v. Mundy, 621 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 2010). See also United States v. Joseph, 730 F.3d 336 (3d Cir. 2013).

Political Activity

Costello’s only political contributions consist of two contributions to Biden and two to Sen. Bob Casey.

Overall Assessment

Provided that her nomination is able to fit into the crowded Senate schedule, Democrats should be able to confirm Costello and fill this vacancy.

432 Comments

  2. Aiden's avatar

    If hypothetically we get a democratic senate and president.

    Is Maldonado then a likely replacement for Sotomayor?

    I am really hopeful that only women will be considered for replacements.
    I think a goal of a Biden administration should be a female majority for SCOTUS.

    So Perez and Maldonado make sense as choices to me.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I would say if Sotomayor retired in the next term with a Democrat senate, there will be a healthy number of strong options to replace her. I think Myrna Perez would be the top contender being from the home state of the senate majority leader & from the circuit Sotomayor came from.

      Nancy Maldonado would be a strong choice too, being from the home state of the senate judiciary committee. I wouldn’t rule out Brad Garcia despite being a man. He is from the second highest court in the land & the youngest circuit court judge in the country. If somehow VP Harris is President & Sotomayor retired, that could put both Gabriel Sanchez & Ana de Alba higher on the list, being from California.

      Like

  5. Zack's avatar

    In Alaska district court news, Senator Sullivan has made clear he has no intention of helping the Biden WH with new nominees so it looks like there will be judicial emergencies coming to the district of Alaska soon.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Joe's avatar

    If Biden wins re election, then I think Sullivan/Murkowski will probably come up with two compromise nominees to recommend along the lines of the South Dakota package. Sullivan almost certainly is waiting it out hoping for a second Trump administration, though.

    Liked by 1 person

    • tsb1991's avatar

      Jasmine Yoon also received her commission yesterday, so we’re down to just Maldonado. After that, unless any judges are confirmed before the August break, the next two judges who will be eligible to take the bench will be Alexakis (8/1) and Baggio (8/21).

      Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      Unfortunately judge Pauline Newman’s fitness (Or lack there of) won’t get Biden a pick for the Federal Circuit this year. Newman is going to continue appealing which will carry on past the election.

      If Biden is re-elected, he will get to replace her & likely at least 2 other judges on that court. I would guess judge Silfen on the Federal Claims Court or some Delaware attorney/judge are waiting in the wing for elevation to this court over the next 4 years.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        It’s much trickier to guess who Trump would appoint to judicial vacancies outside of SCOTUS. I think it’s safe to say he is probably the president who knows the least about the judiciary in my lifetime. That’s despite his sister being a federal judge herself (Fun fact: I met Trump’s sister during the 2016 election. I helped her get a wheelchair for the first time in her life at the West Palm Beach airport). So in Trump’s case it will more so depend on who the Federalist Society & Republican senators tell him to appoint.

        Like

      • Thomas's avatar

        Trump would also have a wide range of judges he appointed to the Court of Federal Claims (10 judges), Court of International Trade (2 Republican judges), the Tax Court (7 judges), but I would also focus on the Eastern District of Texas, which is also a court who is heavily leaning to patent laws, and here he could replace the elevated judges with more younger FedSoc hacks, as well as attorneys from the big lawfirms etc.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. Rick's avatar

    I just can’t get into the Federal Circuit, as to vacancies. I mean when a Circuit Court vacancy arises in the other courts, that is a big deal since they deal in the hot button issues of the day.

    To me, the Federal Circuit is NFL preseason games or the Pro Bowl, just not the same significance as the other Circuits. (unless you have a patent dispute)

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Joe's avatar

    It’s too depressing to even think about a second Trump term. Especially knowing he’ll almost certainly have at least a 50-50 majority and possibly 52-48 or even better.

    Biden, even with an R senate, would at least be able to negotiate a few red state and other packages. Likely not many circuit seats, but probably a fair number of district seats could be filled. And, of course, Biden would be able to stop any right wing ideologues from getting on the bench.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. tsb1991's avatar

    For Senate updates today, the Meriweather confirmation vote won’t happen today, we’ll just get cloture on Willoughby tonight, and the vote to confirm Meriweather will happen sometime later on.

    Every Democrat except Menendez was in attendance today. Not sure about Republican attendance, only two that missed both votes so far were Cruz and Rubio.

    Liked by 1 person

      • tsb1991's avatar

        Yeah, I do use that feed to gauge attendance, there were two votes today but there was a different combination of Republicans who didn’t vote on that second vote than the first (Capito didn’t vote on the first vote but did on the second, Rick Scott didn’t vote on the second vote), the two consistent non-voters were Cruz and Rubio.

        As far as the Senate schedule looks for the rest of the week, Wednesday will probably be to confirm Willoughby and then cloture+confirm the two Labor nominees. They’d probably make the confirmation Meriweather the Thursday morning vote and then the abortion bill the last vote of the week, so I’d keep expectations low about a cloture motion being sent out today for Thursday afternoon.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. Joe's avatar

    They usually don’t send cloture motions mid week. What they did yesterday is likely it for the week.

    We’ll have to see what they do Thursday, but the way the SJC works, none of those nominees will be available to Schumer either, barring unanimous consent. It’ll likely just be some non article three judges or executive nominees. Maybe if Menendez is acquitted they can line up a few of the more partisan votes, though.

    My hope for the last two weeks in July is to at least get Ritz confirmed and knock out some of the district nominees. There should be a lot of them after Thursday. I have a feeling September will be mostly messaging bills.

    Liked by 1 person

    • tsb1991's avatar

      We didn’t get one today (which I kind of figured we wouldn’t once the second 5:45PM vote for today to confirm Meriweather was called off), but in the past we have had cloture filings on Tuesday for a Thursday vote, if the Senate has come in on a Monday. I think Berner’s cloture was filed on a Tuesday this year, for example.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. keystone's avatar

    Lord, this Menendez trial just keeps going and going…

    “Reminder that there are three defendants, and each of their lawyers will offer a closing statement. Fee (Menendez’s lawyer) says he expects to speak for two more hours. Hana’s lawyer estimates his closing will be 2.5 hours. Daibes’s lawyer estimated roughly two hours. Then, the government will offer a rebuttal. It’s looking unlikely that the jury will begin deliberations on Wednesday.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/09/nyregion/bob-menendez-trial

    Liked by 1 person

  15. raylodato's avatar

    While they vote cloture on Willoughby, wanted to ask if anyone had heard of a new date for SHSGAC. They were supposed to send 5 more D.C. Superior Ct. nominees to the floor, but the meeting was postponed and I can’t find any notice of a new date.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. raylodato's avatar

    When Willoughby gets confirmed, there will be 33 Dem appointees on D.C. Superior, 20 R appointees, and 9 vacancies.

    There are 7 nominees for the 9 vacancies; 2 are ready for floor votes and the other 5 were supposed to be voted out of committee today–hence my question.

    The D.C. Court of Appeals has 5 Dem appointees and 2 Rs, with 2 vacancies. There are 2 nominees but no hearing has been scheduled yet.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jamie's avatar

      The party appointment is not particularly useful when almost all of the finalists sent to the President are Democrats. There isn’t a whole lot to suggest that Judge Joshua Deahl, who was a public defender, is a conservative. My guess is that Trump picked him over the other finalists because he was a white male.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Thomas's avatar

      The same happened at the business meeting at the Finance Committee, there was no quorum, so Wyden and Crapo agreed to meet later that day, and the nominees were voted out.

      That something like that happens at the SHSGAC I can hardly imagine, Paul as ranking member has already escalated a meeting and threatened to walk out, but Sinema intervened and calmed everything down a few month ago. But beside Paul there are also Hawley and Scott of Florida, so there is no reasonable co-operation possible. So I believe they have to schedule a new meeting in two weeks. Principally there are still two more nominees waiting for more than a year until that is done.

      I don’t believe that they schedule a hearing for the two vacancies without nominee, they would likely wait until there are three nominees together, No. 3 is the replacement for chief judge Josey-Herring, who will leave at October 1. They also could mix them up with the CoA nominees, but I don’t believe that.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Although it takes more time, there still is a path to confirmation even if Republicans pull a stunt & walk out. Democrats would just need to discharge the nominees on the senate floor first. Then go through the cloture & confirmation votes. But of course they would likely need to cancel some redress time if it got to that.

        Like

    • keystone's avatar

      It’s a US Attorney and bunch of AUSA’s so, yes, they definitely have potential for future elevation. It would probably be in New York, not New Jersey since they belong to the SDNY which means that they work would be centered on that area.

      I know Mangi belongs to a NYC based law firm but he also had a lot of cases that were in NJ and was a long time resident of the state. I’m not sure that any of the folks on that list are even members of the NJ bar, which I think would be a tough sell for getting them nominated over the river.

      I’m not sure if they would have easy confirmations. Historically, AUSA’s have had fairly easy ascents, but Jeanette Vargas is a SDNY AUSA who had a very uneventful hearing and she wasn’t able to get any bipartisan support in her committee vote. So, nothing seems to be a slam dunk anymore.

      Liked by 1 person

  18. tsb1991's avatar

    Klobuchar wrapped up. Schedule tomorrow looks to be to confirm Willoughby, cloture+confirm one of the Labor board nominees, and then a vote on the abortion bill.

    At that point, what’s left for Thursday is likely to confirm Meriweather, and then cloture+confirm the other Labor nominee.

    For tomorrow’s hearing, no surprises, Perry wasn’t submitted, so it’s just the three District Court nominees who were nominated for this hearing. Also mentions that Butler, not Durbin, will preside over the hearing. Given that it’s only a hearing for three nominees, probably not worth it for Durbin? It’ll be Butler’s first time presiding since the outburst at Netburn’s hearing, so we’ll see if anything comes up.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      There are no more slam dunks with this senate composition. We are wasting time with cloture & floor votes for local DC judges that have 15-year terms.

      It is utterly ridiculous they couldn’t send April Perry’s name to the senate in time for her to be in tomorrow’s hearing. Had the WH just waited 5 or 6 more hours to send nominations to the senate Monday night, she could have been included. I’m not even going to waste my time watching the hearing tomorrow for three nominees. A missed opportunity in a time where every nominee counts.

      Like

  19. keystone's avatar

    Wow, Wise’s SJQ is 55 pages. Among the articles she’s written are “Think Outside the Prison”, “Gender Laws Are at Odds With Science”, “Faces of Environmental Racism”. Can only imagine how those will go over with the GOP members.

    Interesting that she first applied in 2021 to Feinstein.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Charles Judges's avatar

    I’m curious about the conduct how SJC hearings are done. Like, is it possible to have a nomination hearing with 1 circuit court nominee and 4 district court nominees? So if April Perry will not get through this hearing then maybe in the next nomination hearing on the 3rd week of July?

    Like

  21. keystone's avatar

    “Murkowski said that she had forwarded the names of two potential nominees to the White House…….

    On Tuesday, Sullivan said he also had forwarded two names of potential nominees to the White House who are different from those submitted by Murkowksi. One name was submitted in January, another in June, a Sullivan staff member said. “

    https://www.adn.com/politics/2024/07/09/kindreds-resignation-leaves-alaska-with-one-active-federal-judge/

    Like

  23. Gavi's avatar

    Re: the article Keystone shared

    This Kindred situation is an embarrassment for Murkowski. Kindred’s appointment exemplifies the saying that to be a judge you need to first know a senator. I don’t think the “rigorous” vetting that Murkowski did is what made Kindred a judge. It’s their family connection and his Alaska Oil and Gas Association connection didn’t hurt, either. Now Sullivan will be even less likely to simply go along with her vetted recommendation. He said so himself: “He said Kindred’s resignation showed why the bar association’s vetting could potentially be insufficient with a poll of attorneys, an interview and nominees submitting their resumes.

    ‘I think this is an example of why we actually need a much better, thorough, detailed process of due diligence.’ “

    This isn’t to say that Sullivan’s recommendation would have been any better. What do we know of Jonathan Katchen, Sullivan’s first choice?

    We now know that the WH has 4 (!) recommendations for a single vacancy (Judge Timothy Burgess’s) pre-Kindred’s resignation. The questions now are:

    • 1 – How many of those are viable candidates for a Dem president/Senate?
    • 2 – Do the two senators cross-endorse each other’s pair?
    • 3 – If yes to both, can any of the viable, cross-endorsed candidates be shifted to Kindred’s seat? (I don’t know how strongly duty stations matter in Alaska.)
    • 4 – If yes to all those, will the WH make/be allowed to make (by the senators) the nomination(s) before the elections?

    Last week I pointed out Carl Tobias’ shoddy record as a supposed judicial confirmation expert. Yet here he is completely misrepresenting the recommendations of the Judicial Council and pushing this idea that Kindred, a fully private citizen holding no office of the United States, can still be impeached. The Council’s recommendations were twofold: it ordered the public reprimand of Kindred and certified that his actions are possibly impeachable (a finding it had to make and refer to the Judicial Conference by law). It also requested that he resign, which would foreclose impeachment.  Before anyone mention Trump’s second impeachment, I’d suggest you consult a calendar and the Constitution. Trump was impeached a second time while he was still a president. His post-January 20th impeachment trial in the Senate is a different matter irrelevant to this situation.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Gavi

      Really good insight. I would only add a fifth question to the four you asked. That question is would Sullivan agree to any Democrat this close to an election when the Republican nominee had at worst a 50/50 change of winning & the Republicans have more than a 50/50 chance of taking the senate. My guess to that question is probably not. But if you’re talking about 2025 & beyond, I don’t think even Sullivan will keep two-thirds of the seats in his home state vacant for 4 years should Biden win.

      Like

      • Gavi's avatar

        Your 5th question is my 4th.

        And I don’t think Sullivan would particularly mind if all 3 seats were vacant. Just look what he said “senior judges could help ease Gleason’s caseload as a temporary measure.” The question is how temporary is temporary? Alaska currently has 5 senior judges and can get additional judges to sit by designation, should the need arise. I just don’t think he cares, much like the Cottons and Hawleys of the Senate.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Hank's avatar

      Yeah there’s no way Sullivan agrees to fill these vacancies before the election – especially he’ll have a much freer hand with Trump likely to be back in the WH next year.

      Kindred is definitely more Murkowski’s fault than anybody else’s – the Alaska Bar Association ranked him 16th out of 20 applicants in terms of being qualified for the position. That’s hardly a ringing endorsement. Sullivan’s pick also got bad reviews (though slightly better than Kindred) and ended up withdrawing b/c Murkowski wouldn’t sign off. I generally think bar associations give too much weight to big law/private practice and not enough to public service (why are there no Alaska judges with American Indian law experience?), but it’s hard to blame this one on them. And Sullivan was already listening only to Fed Soc nutjobs in picking nominees, so this isn’t going to change anything.

      I just hope this motivates Morgan Christen (the only Alaska judge on CA9) to stick it out if/when Trump and the Republicans win this fall. God knows that Fed Soc is full of the likes of Kindred.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Mike S.'s avatar

        Very well said, Hank. It’s unfortunate we can’t get two consensus picks out of Alaska like we did with South Dakota, but this close to an election and a guy like Sullivan as senator, not too surprising.

        We really need a push to confirm more judges before the summer recess – come on, Chuck!

        Liked by 1 person

  24. keystone's avatar

    A few notes on today’s hearings…..

    Costello – She had a very easy hearing. Didn’t really get a lot of questions. Graham spent his time asking her about her time serving in the military and what that meant to her.

    Provinzino – Dems did a lot to highlight her work on trafficking cases. Hirrono highlighted Provinzino’s work on cases to combat violence against native women. GOP raised some issues with a group she worked for for a year ~2004 that has made some sort of controversial comments recently. Klobochar was quick to point out that the organization was actually founded by a former Republican Congressman and quoted Amy Coney Barrett during her hearing when she was asked about belonging to a group that made homophobic remarks that membership in a group doesn’t mean ascribing to all beliefs.

    Wise unsurprisingly took most to the hits. The TIME article came up A LOT. The Gender article she wrote was in context to a specific case involving an intersexed individual, someone whose gender was undeterminable at the time of birth but the doctor is forced to make a decision. The case involved an intersexed person who, upon growing older, wanted to change the documentation and had to go through the court system to do so. I thought Wise spoke about it well. Butler asked Wise about the article title and Wise stated that she did not pick the title but guessed that TIME didn’t thing “Chromosomal Irregularities at Birth” wasn’t catchy enough.

    Wise also took some hits over an article criticizing the Trump judicial nominees for not being diverse. Lee and Hawley felt like it was a personal attack on them.

    They were also upset over her involvement with the charity Girls Inc because they use a broad definition of what a girl is.

    I will say, most of the GOP was somewhat well behaved today. Hawley tried to throw in some theatrics. Kennedy tried to do a bit of his “do you believe in the tooth fairy” schtick and his “you’re lying” bit but frankly, he pulls out those chestnuts so often these days that it just seems mind of sad and muted.

    Liked by 2 people

  25. Ads's avatar

    All respect to AOC for filing articles of impeachment against Thomas & Alito for taking bribes. Should have been done a while ago. Lack of action by the Dems have only served to normalize the actions of those 2 up until now. They need to make the case to the public that their corruption shouldn’t be seen as just business/politics as usual.

    Liked by 2 people

  27. tsb1991's avatar

    In addition, cloture was withdrawn on the other Labor nominee and they will just get a straight up confirmation vote at some point.

    Senate will vote to confirm Meriweather tomorrow afternoon. Should hopefully get some cloture motions sent out too. Maybe there’s a chance we get moving on some party-line nominees as the Menendez trial should be wrapped up by the time it gets back, it sounds like?

    I believe the Senate also needs to work on passing the NDAA at some point so I wouldn’t be surprised to see that being taken care of before the August break as well.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. tsb1991's avatar

    SJC Meeting Recap:

    -There was some discussion about Netburn at the beginning, Cruz made it in time for the vote where he got to do this blowup, and then another prolonged discussion was had.

    -Kidd, Court, Hwang, Dixon were party-line votes
    -Netburn was ultimately defeated with Ossoff voting no
    -Abelson and Vacca were 12-9 (Graham)
    -Neumann was 13-8 (Graham and Tillis)
    -Saporito was 14-7 (Graham, Tillis, Kennedy)

    Well, at least with Netburn being defeated, if she withdraws the White House has pretty much until late August at the least to get a replacement, no?

    Liked by 2 people

      • tsb1991's avatar

        One way I look at Ossoff’s vote is that he’s the only SJC Democrat from a state where it’s pretty difficult for his party to win, so I wonder if there was any consideration there. Every other SJC Democrat, except probably Klobuchar (while Minnesota is blue-leaning, it’s far from safe and she generally far outruns the partisanship of the state) comes from a pretty blue state.

        Netburn I believe is also the first nominee under Biden to be outright defeated in committee, Delaney withdrew without a committee vote but it sounded like there weren’t the votes on the SJC to advance him anyway. If you also want to be technical, Johnstone was defeated in the SJC at the start of the Congress (Graham, who voted “pass” on his nomination in the last Congress which got him out of the then-deadlocked committee, voted no this Congress, the vote came when the SJC was 10-10 and the Senate hadn’t fully re-organized to give Democrats an outright majority on the committee), but was advanced on the next attempt once Democrats had their majority on the committee in place.

        Like

    • keystone's avatar

      Honestly, these results are better than I was expecting overall.

      Surprising that Saporito got more votes than Neumann (who presumably has a blue slip from Collins).

      Annoying that all 3 of the CA nominees are party line.

      Netburn is surprising. I hope Schumer (or what she Gillibrand) move quickly with a replacement. Wonder what this means for Wise’s chances.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Leave it to @Gavi to sit by as 17 New York judicial nominees are confirmed in the home state of the majority leader over three & a half years, to rush & point out when one finally doesn’t get confirmed. If nothing else, he is at least consistent… Haaaaaa

      Like

      • Gavi's avatar

        It’s very Frank of you to now try to cabin and qualify your past definitive statements. I only point this out because it’s always foolish to speak definitively about these things. You didn’t say after the 17th confirmation or after 3 years. You said no way would that happen. it just happened.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I also didn’t say not one good thing about Netburn. Literally if you go back & look on every previous blog post you can’t find not ONE good thing I have said about Netburn.

        So yes, if Schumer or Gillibrand recommend a really crappy nominee that even I can’t bring myself to say one positive thing about since the day they were nominated, then yes my theory could be wrong. I didn’t think that needed to be said but I guess for you it must be… Lol

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        There are over 8 billion people on planet Earth. When I make a statement like anybody can be confirmed, I would think it’s pretty common sense that I’m not being literal. I would think everybody on this blog understands that if Vladimir Putin was the nominee, I don’t seriously think he will be confirmed. Or if a toddler that just came out of the womb was nominated, that they would be confirmed. Or a guy on death row or a non attorney.

        When I say anybody can be confirmed to the majority leaders home state, out of the 8 billion people in the planet, there’s actually over 7 billion that I actually don’t think could be confirmed. So yes @Gavi, if you are taking my words literal then you are correct, I was wrong. I didn’t think I needed to point out I didn’t really mean every human on God’s green Earth could be confirmed but I guess going forward I’ll have to have a separate section in my comments to point things out for you.

        Like

  33. Dequan's avatar

    Looks like Senator Ossoff was the only senate Democrat to vote against this on the floor today…

    12:51 p.m. By a vote of 48-46, the Cardin point of order with respect to S.J. Res. 89 (War Powers Resolution on Pier in Gaza Strip) was well taken and the Cruz motion to discharge falls. Democrat voting against: Senator Ossoff. Senators not voting: Capito, Daines, Markey, Menendez, Romney, & Scott (FL).

    Like

  34. tsb1991's avatar

    Maldonado received her commission today, so that should clear the way for Park’s nomination to be sent to the Senate, although I’d bet on it not happening until after they get back from this break. The only other commission that will be pending for a while will be Meriweather, who was just confirmed. Now waiting to see if any cloture motions get sent out.

    Unless any judges are confirmed before the August break, the next two judges who will be eligible to take the bench will be Alexakis on 8/21 and Baggio on 8/21.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Joe's avatar

    I am hopeful they use the last two weeks in July to push through as many judges as possible. It’s a shame the one’s voted out today can’t be set up for the 22nd, but oh well.

    Once we get closure on the Menendez case that will make things much clearer. There are currently 17 nominees awaiting a vote now and I think all but Abelson, Vacca, Neuman, and Saporito will likely be party line votes. We’re going to need all hands on deck.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. tsb1991's avatar

    Almost had a heart attack with Whitehouse after his speech about SCOTUS being corrupted. Did all of the wrap-up procedures but thankfully didn’t adjourn the Senate. Thought for a moment that was going to be it as no cloture motions have been sent out yet (that’d leave the Senate doing absolutely nothing on the Wednesday they’re back, the only nomination they’d be able to vote on is that Labor nominee).

    Liked by 1 person

  37. star0garnet's avatar

    After the latest movement, here’s where we stand:

    Circuit courts:
    3 awaiting floor vote, 2 awaiting committee vote, 1 awaiting hearing, 1 awaiting nominee

    District courts:
    14 awaiting floor vote, 5 awaiting committee vote, 3 awaiting hearing (including 1 requiring GOP blue slip), 1 awaiting nomination, 2 awaiting presumptive withdrawal and replacement nominee, 7 awaiting nominee (including 1 vacancy occurring next presidential term), 33 presumptive unfilled vacancies (including 2 pending nominees)

    Tax court:
    3 awaiting floor vote, 3 awaiting committee vote

    DC CoA:
    2 awaiting hearing

    DC Superior:
    1 awaiting floor vote, 5 awaiting committee vote, 3 awaiting nominee (including 1 awaiting commission recommendations)

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Mike's avatar

    So at least 4 nominees got bipartisan support out of comittee and should get GOP votes to get confirmed.

    Add in whatever happens with Menendez it should be resolved by the time the senate resumes in 2 weeks, I want to see at least 10 confirmations.

    No more BS votes please!

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Joe's avatar

    I don’t think we’ll see 10. The last time that had 10 was November 2023 and the last month that exceeded 10 was March 2022.

    I’ll be happy with 5 or 6 though, particularly if one of them is Ritz or Kidd.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thomas's avatar

      If think we have to be realistic and hence state, that it’s obvious, that the Senate Democrats have not the votes for all or at least almost all of the circuit and district nominees who were waiting for a floor vote until todays committee meeting. And as already said, maybe three or four of the district courts nominees are candidates for a relative smooth confirmation. Otherwise they wouldn’t have confirmed many nominees who will start months later while other seats are already empty and some of them even on the list of the judicial emergencies.

      And if they have not the votes today they won’t have them in the lame duck period, remember how close Maldonado’s confirmation vote was – could have be failed if two or three more GOP senators would have appeared – and hitting exatctly that point, when the votes are sufficient, is also difficult, we saw that at the planned Kashubhai vote, when they maybe had a majorty two days earlier and filing cloture, and at the day of the vote, there wasn’t enough.

      So it’s unfair to blame Schumer for doing other business and criticzing ‘stunts’ for abortion, and also ones against SCOTUS justices just in the other way.

      Republicans have announced to block expedited confirmations and they do, maybe with exception to get a DC superior court judge confirmed by voice vote and withdrawing the cloture for the Republican FLRA nominee, but generally everybody has to go the long way, also the Tax Court nominees.

      I hope they can get over the finishing line as much as possible, but I have serious doubts, and maybe we see much less than we expect now at the conclusion at the end of the year.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Yea I agree. Karen Henderson is bad, but not even the top two on the DC Circuit. Justin Walker is a hand picked partisan hack that McConnell has mentored for decades.

        He’s the reason I stopped caring about ABA ratings. They rated him NQ for the district court but a year later said he was WQ for the second highest court in the land.

        Liked by 1 person

      • star0garnet's avatar

        Walker’s kept far too low a profile so far for that distinction, though he could claim it if he lets his inner desires shine through. Rao’s probably solidified a lead. Henderson’s a combo of Alito and Barrett, Katasas is similar to Gorsuch, Rao’s a combo of Thomas and Barrett, and Walker’s a combo of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

        Liked by 2 people

      • tsb1991's avatar

        What if the low profile is due to the fact that conservatives are the minority on the DC Circuit so they can’t make a whole lot of noise like their 5th Circuit buddies? That and any decision they make can easily be reversed en banc, if there’s an unlucky draw with two of them in the panel of three. I think there was one case involving Trump and either his taxes or January 6 that by some astronomical odds drew all three Trump appointees on that court, needless to say I believe whatever decision that was made was reversed en banc. If judges are randomly drawn and if I did the math right, I think the odds of getting all three Trump appointees on a case is about 6/10 of 1 percent (3/11 * 2/10 * 1/9)?

        Liked by 2 people

      • star0garnet's avatar

        @tsb The low profile is certainly due in part to the makeup of the court, but those are the same conditions the other conservatives are working under. But it also speaks to his approach to maintaining his SCOTUS ambitions.

        The odds of three specific judges sitting together are even longer, as those don’t include senior judges, let alone visiting judges or district judges sitting by designation (not sure if either of those is applicable to the DC Circuit). I believe the three Trump appointees have released three opinions from two separate sittings (an Indian Health Service case, a citizenship paperwork case, and a drug dealer sentencing case). The only dissent in the three cases was Katsas taking a more libertarian approach to the citizenship case.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Gavi's avatar

        Interesting that in your evaluation you stacked one case where she got it right against all her right wing decisions throughout the years.

        Just this term, Alito joined all his colleagues to overtune the very hacky mifepristone rulings by the CA5 and Kacsmaryk. Is Alito now not the hack he’s always been?

        Remember, a broken clock…

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jamie's avatar

        I’m almost certain that Alito would have filed a dissent upholding Kacsmaryk and James Ho’s reasoning if not for the recent news about his hackish behavior.
        Alito has mused in oral arguments about a “right to life” for fetuses in the Constitution, and I fully expect that he will file a concurrence or dissent arguing for one in the coming years (unless he suddenly dies).

        Liked by 2 people

  46. Zack's avatar

     Karen Henderson was hand picked by Ken Starr to replace him on the DC Circuit and we know how much of a hack he is.
    It just shows how much further to the right people being put on the courts under Republicans have become when someone like Henderson is a moderate to a degree.

    Liked by 2 people

  47. Zack's avatar

    I got word pressed with my comments about Karen Henderson.
    What I meant to say was it’s telling of how far right some of the judges put on the courts under Trump and W have pushed the law to where other conservative jurists like her are viewed as moderates when they aren’t.
    And yes, she was on the right side of one issue but overall her record is just as bad as any W or Trump judge and if George Sr had won a 2nd term, I believe she would have been a front runner for a SCOTUS seat.
    As it stands, I do believe she will take senior status if Republicans are back in charge but no way will she ever voluntarily do so under Biden.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      Is there any precedent for how things work if a district court becomes entirely vacant? Chief Judge Gleason is 66 and what happens if she has a heart attack?

      The court has 4 senior judges, and I suppose one of them could become acting Chief Judge. Other possibilities include visiting judges or a recess appointment, provided the Senators don’t interfere with the latter. If a chief judge has to be in regular status, Biden could give a recess appointment to one of the senior judges who could then take senior status again after their recess appointment expires.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Frank's avatar

        You could look back to when there was only one judgeship for certain courts as for what would be done today should that happen again. In the present day, senior judges would be available to take up the slack along with judges from other districts. That being said, it should be a high priority to fill these seats.

        Liked by 2 people

  50. Joe's avatar

    Jury has adjourned in the Menendez trial. They’ll be picking it back up Monday. l guess that’s what happens when you do four days of closing arguments and don’t start deliberations until 2:00 on a Friday.

    I swear this has been the longest trial of all time.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment