Julia Lipez – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

The daughter of a prominent First Circuit Judge, Maine Superior Court Judge Julia Lipez is poised to take the seat that her father once held.

Background

The daughter of First Circuit Judge Kermit Victor Lipez, Julia Lipez received a B.A. magna cum laude from Amherst College in 2002 and her J.D., with distinction from Stanford Law School in 2006. After graduating, Lipez clerked for Judge Diana Gribbon Motz on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Lipez then joined the New York office of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (Wilmer Hale). Lipez then shifted to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maine, where she became Appellate Chief.

In 2022, Governor Janet Mills appointed Lipez to the Maine Superior Court, where she has served since.

History of the Seat

Lipez has been nominated for a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. If confirmed, Lipez would replace Judge William Kayatta, who will take senior status upon confirmation of a successor. Kayatta himself replaced Lipez’s father.

Legal Experience

After her clerkship, Lipez joined WilmerHale as an Associate, where she primarily worked on civil litigation. Notably, during this time, Lipez was part of the legal team representing the City of New Haven in the landmark Supreme Court case of Ricci v. DeStefano (the team was led by future federal judge Victor Bolden). See Ricci v DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009). In Ricci, the Supreme Court narrowly sided with the City in approving its use of eminent domain to seize land for economic development rather than direct public use. See id.

On the criminal side, Lipez, alongside former Solicitor General Seth Waxman and future federal judge Paul Engelmayer, represented Ronald Ferguson, the CEO of the General Reinsurance Corporation, alleging fraud and other offenses arising from the collapse of AIG. See United States v. Ferguson, 676 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2011).

From 2011 to 2022, Lipez served as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maine. Notably, Lipez served as the office’s Human Trafficking Coordinator between 2014 and 2022, and the office’s Appellate chief between 2015 and 2022. During this time, Lipez argued around 15 cases before the First Circuit and tried seven jury trials.

Notably, Lipez prosecuted David Miller for transporting his minor adopted daughter across state lines for criminal sexual activity. See United States v. Miller, 911 F.3d 638 (1st Cir. 2018). Lipez also successfully argued before the First Circuit (in a panel that included former Supreme Court Justice David Souter) to defend tax evasion and fraud convictions for a doctor who illegally documented and wrote off phony medical debt. See United States v. Sabean, 885 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2018).

Judicial Experience

Since 2022, Lipez has served as a judge on the Maine Superior Court, which is a trial court of general jurisdiction, but also oversees administrative appeals. During her time as a judge, Lipez has presided over 14 jury and seven bench trials.

Notably, Lipez affirmed a decision by Secretary of State Shanna Bellows to bar Chris Christie from the Maine Republican Presidential Primary ballot, finding that he had not submitted sufficient valid signatures for the ballot. See Susan Cover, Judge Upholds Decision to Leave Chris Christie Off Maine Ballot, Saying He Failed to Get Enough Signatures, Spectrum News, Dec. 22, 2023, https://spectrumlocalnews.com/me/maine/politics/2023/12/22/judge-upholds-decision-to-leave-chris-christie-off-maine-ballots.

Among other notable cases, Lipez denied motions to dismiss sexual assault charges against a defendant based on speedy trial and double jeopardy after his first jury deadlocked. See State v. Michaud, KENCD-CR-19-2763 (Me. Super. Ct.).

Writings

As a law student at Stanford, Lipez authored a paper discussing California’s programs to help ex-offenders return to the workforce after prison. See Julia Lipez, A Return to the “World of Work”: An Analysis of California’s Prison Job Training Programs and Statutory Barriers to Ex-Offender Employment, Crime and Punishment Policy: Reforming California Corrections, Jan. 27, 2006, available at https://law.stanford.edu/index.php?webauth-document=child-page/266901/doc/slspublic/JLipez_05.pdf. In the paper, Lipez outlines California’s current schemes but also posits that more assertive policy changes are necessary in California to ensure that ex-offenders are able to return to the workforce. Specifically, Lipez recommends increased training for offenders in the fields of carpentry, as well as in reception and clerical positions in offices. See id. at 41-42. Lipez argues that, improving employment prospects significantly cuts down on recidivism, making everyone safer. See id. at 45.

More recently, Lipez co-authored an article discussing strategies for prosecutors to develop a successful practice with human trafficking cases. See Kate Crisham and Julia Lipez, Developing a Successful Human Trafficking Practice, 70 Dep’t of Just. J. Fed. L. & Prac. 297 (2022).

Overall Assessment

With President Biden’s announcement that he will not be seeking re-election, he nonetheless can point to judges as one of the strongest accomplishments of his first term. This impact is likely to be strengthened by the confirmation of Lipez.

Setting aside her famous parentage, Lipez brings to her nomination extensive litigation experience on both the civil and criminal side, as well as appellate experience and time spent on the bench. As such, despite her youth, Lipez can certainly be deemed qualified for the bench. If confirmed, Lipez, as the youngest judge to join the First Circuit since Stephen Breyer in 1980, would likely play a significant role in shaping First Circuit jurisprudence.

135 Comments

  1. Dequan's avatar

    Lipez was the front runner for this seat from the beginning. With Collins support, she should be on her way to confirmation sometime in September before the recess for the elections. I wish she (Along with the other circuit court nominees) could be fast tracked & confirmed before the Summer recess.

    Like

  2. Dequan's avatar

    Joe Manchin is on Morning Joe now. He just said he’s not running for president or any office this year. He name checked some people he thinks should run for the nomination & will make VP Harris stronger if she comes out on top. He mentioned all governors of Illinois, Pennsylvania, Kentucky & North Carolina.

    Like

  4. Joe's avatar

    If he really is done with politics after this term, I really wish he’d just vote for some of Biden’s more controversial nominees. Like, I’d get his stance if he was running for another office. But if he’s done then why not go down supporting the party? I think he really is just a conservative Democrat though.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Joe's avatar

        No, I agree with you. That’s why I said I think he really is just a very conservative Democrat.

        I’ve listened to a number of his interviews over the years and I definitely don’t think he’s some political savant. Just the right guy who was well suited to the right state at the right times.

        I am thankful for his service and his decisions to run for the senate because I think thing would be a lot worse off if he had not done so.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Gavi's avatar

    Since everyone’s giving their bad takes, I’ll add mine.

    Why is the Democratic Party so addicted/dependent on old pols? I have nothing personal against Roy Cooper but I can’t believe that one old man will be added to the ticket after another one had to leave. Isn’t now a great opportunity to make a stark contrast with the Trump ticket on his age? How come Republicans are powered by hard right “young guns” but Dems are stuck with senior citizens?

    For me, it’s all about the judiciary. So I hope the choice will improve not just Harris’s chances, but the Dem senate candidates’. That’s where Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Arizona come into play.

    In my opinion, Gretchen Whitmer would be the best VP candidate. Michigan has a US Senate race on the ballot and having another home state candidate second from the top of the ballot can’t hurt (see Vance in OH). (And I won’t even dignify the claim that this ticket would make bigots uncomfortable. What else would you do in the name of appeasing bigotry?)

    PA is the largest electoral vote swing state, but I do not think Josh Shapiro needs to be on the ballot to win that state. PA has had a better stretch of recent history of voting Dem than NC. So a smart campaign there, especially with really good Harris surrogates, including Joe Biden himself, should keep it competitive and within reach for Dems.

    This brings me to my second choice, which I think might be Harris’s first: Mark Kelly. Arizona is another state with a US Senate race, but not a very long recent history of voting Dems. When it comes to the US Senate, I am loath to cause an unnecessary election. Yes, the Dem governor may appoint a temporary replacement, but that seat must be on the ballot in the next election. As we have seen, these elections are not a given for the party that previously held the seat (see Mark Kirk in IL, Scott Brown in MA, Doug Jones in AL, Mark Kelly in AZ, Raphael Warnock in GA, etc.). Arizona has been trending away from *Biden* all this cycle. Maybe the choice of Kelly will stop/reverse this and bring along Ruben Gallego.

    North Carolina is a stretch for Dems in much better election years, let alone this one. I don’t know how Cooper could help change that as a VP candidate and not just as a governor. NC also has a governor race on the ballot, which should goose up turnout as much as we can hope for.

    Dems shouldn’t take advice from Manchin, it’s not his party and soon he’ll become what he fears the most: totally irrelevant. I won’t say much about Andy Beshear, except to note that only Mitch McConnell would support this choice.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Gavi

      I’ll start with your second choice because Senator Kelly is actually my second choice as well. He would be an excellent pick for all the reasons you mentioned, but also as you mentioned the special election does give me pause.

      On to your first choice. Governor Whitmer would be a phenomenal choice. Bigots not wanting two woman on the ticket factored zero in my opinion of putting Governor Cooper as my first choice. As you mentioned I doubt anybody that wouldn’t vote for two woman would vote for a Black woman at the top of the ticket anyway.

      Cooper being my first choice has more to do with he is leaving office soon unlike all of the other candidates mentioned. And I disagree with you that North Carolina is out of reach. The senate loss for Beasley was around 3% & Democrats didn’t even look at the state on the map, let alone invest in it.

      I more than think a Harris & Cooper ticket can make up for that 3% while simultaneously keeping one of the worst people running for office out of the governor’s mansion. I think with Biden off the ticket, Harris will have a better chance carrying Michigan without their governor on the ticket & she can continue being the phenomenal governor she has been so far. Although I wouldn’t shed a tear if she was the VP pick & we got a young solid Black man as the new over in her place. But I’ll stick with Cooper as my personal first choice.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. Joe's avatar

    Personally I would pick Shapiro. Pennsylvania is the biggest swing state and Shapiro is very popular there. I think adding whatever boost you get from elevating him to the ticket would be worth it.

    Whitmer would be fine too for the same reasons.

    As much as I like Evers and Cooper, both are older. (and, through no fault of their own, both look older than their age).

    Beshear would be great. I love a red state democrat because they know how to fight in the trenches and also how appeal to swing voters. But unfortunately, he doesn’t bring a bunch to the table electorally.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Ethan's avatar

    Cool fact. Julia Lipez is the second woman named Julia nominated by Biden for a federal judicial seat once held by her father. The other was Julia Munley in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. And in both cases, they were not the direct successor.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. tsb1991's avatar

    My view on Mark Kelly as a running mate are exactly the same as Raphael Warnock as a running mate. While Mark Kelly would have Katie Hobbs and not Kari Lake naming his successor to a vacant Senate seat, it would still trigger a special election for a seat in a tough state that we not only had to win in 2020, but to hold it in 2022 during a Democratic President’s midterm election. Winning that seat in 2022 locked it up through 2028, putting Mark Kelly on the ticket would trigger another special election for that seat which would happen during 2026, a possible Harris midterm. The same circumstances happened with Warnock, elected in 2021 in a runoff to fill out the remainder of the term and then winning a full term in 2022. I’d hate to jeopardize a seat where so much effort would put into flipping a long-held Republican seat and then holding onto it in a midterm where that seat should have easily flipped back to Republicans.

    My issue with Shapiro is mostly that he’s not even halfway through his first term and was one of the party’s prized winners of 2022, I’d hate to pull him out of the governorship so soon. This was also my issue when Gretchen Whitmer was on Biden’s shortlist in 2020 for VP, she had just been elected governor in 2018, flipping it from Republicans and like Shapiro, was one of the party’s star recruits.

    The only real pick without any electoral risks would be Beshear, since he’s termed out in 2027 and his LG would be able to finish the term out.

    One of the things I do appreciate about Biden’s presidency is how much better shape the party is compared to the aftermath of Obama’s presidency. By the end of Obama’s presidency, the party was just completely decimated from the top down. Republicans had won control of the White House and Congress, had around 35 governorships or so, including many dark blue state governors, and control of almost enough legislatures that they could have called for a constitutional convention. The only swing state governor Democrats really had after Obama was Tom Wolf in Pennsylvania, who largely won his seat in the disastrous 2014 midterm on the count that Tom Corbett was just absurdly unpopular. Fast forward to today, nearly every swing state has a Democratic governor, so the bench is far more healthy and replenished, they control the Senate which is a fundamentally hard chamber for them to win control of, and are just a few House seats from House control. Nothing replenishes your party faster than a midterm election when not being in the White House, that’s for sure.

    The Senate had its last pro forma of its break today, and while there’s no drama behind tomorrow’s vote, it’ll still be worth watching to see if Bob Menendez makes an appearance. I did find it amusing watching him vote on the floor while he was indicted and his trial pending.

    As far as Lipez is concerned, her SJC vote should be this week. She was hammered pretty hard at the hearing if I remember, so I’m thinking she’ll be party-line even if she has a blue slip from Collins.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Jamie's avatar

    People here keep thinking that we are running against Mitt Romney. We’re not, the opponent is potentially an existential threat to democracy, this country, and the world. In that situation, you don’t get the niceties of not picking a senator even if it has a GOP governor, not worrying about appealing to bigots, or making judges as more important than beating Donald Trump.

    If Sherrod Brown or Jon Tester would get me over the top, I’d pick him in a heartbeat right now. Same with Warnock or Cortez Masto (who would be replaced by a GOP Governor). I just don’t believe that they help much over Josh Shapiro or Roy Cooper.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Joe's avatar

    I sort of agree with Jamie. The bench is pretty deep. Democrats have the luxury of having a lot of decent options. The top of the ticket matters more than any individual race and if we pluck Kelly or one of the governors they will be replaced by a reliable Democrat at least for two years.

    But beating Trump is essential.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. tsb1991's avatar

    Looking at the seats on the DC local court, are there certain dates where judges can take the bench and begin their terms? There are three confirmed judges who have yet to take the bench, but I have noticed the other judges all tend to take the bench on the same date (two of them started on June 21 last month, a whole bunch of others started on 1/17/23 while a previous batch all started on 2/25/22). It doesn’t look like the federal courts where they can start once the commission is signed and even if there are other judges confirmed to that same court ready to take the bench as well.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thomas's avatar

      It was mentioned that finding a free slot when all of them could be sworn at the same time is difficult. At the last times when they came in a bundles, and I believe, they also try to do that now again. The court is heavily overloaded with cases, so onboarding has to be planned carefully, the last three confirmed judges this year were already magistrate judges, so onboarding was easy, but the three now waiting are all coming from outside, private practice, Court of Federal Claims and one prosecutor. All of them has waited for a long time, so they maybe also can’t simply leave their old jobs within days.

      The court got two new magistrate judges as well, while two more are vacant, so elevating them to associate judges is also not bringing real relief at the first time.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Gavi's avatar

      Thanks for the news!

      Would be great to get rid of, and replace the last Republican appointed active judge on this court. But I have no confidence that this will be done before the end of the year.

      Also, in the likely event of Trump’s reelection, I wouldn’t put my faith in the NY senators’ blue slip. Why? Not because I think the Republicans will ditch it (not saying that they won’t, in fact, I think the chances are higher that they do). I don’t trust the NY senators because in the first Trump term, they agreed to a something:something deal for NY district court judges. (I don’t remember if it was Trump’s 3 or 4 to Schumer’s 1). So Trump will have a lot of opportunities to fill open seats in NY with the 2 senators’ signoff. Those Trump judges don’t need to be card-carrying FedSoc members to be terrible, especially for NY.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Late but I’ll take it. Particularly with an already existing vacancy on the court, albeit for a different duty station. I am not confident this seat will get a nominee & filled before Biden’s term but I’m much more confident a Democrat will be president next year than I was this time last week so I think the seat will get filled with a Democrat.

        Liked by 1 person

  16. Joe's avatar

    There should be enough time to confirm a nominee for that vacancy. It’s going to be tight though. I’d imagine they’d probably be a part of that post election SJC hearing date. But maybe Schumer and Gillibrand have a nominee in mind they can fast track.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. keystone's avatar

    I feel like a lot of the names that people have thrown out on here for Hurd’s seat are actually based in Syracuse, e.g. Rajit Dosanjh. I could see a situation where they take one of the Syracuse based judges being interviewing for Hurd and instead nominating that person for Suddaby. The Suddaby seat has a definitive end date. The Hurd seat is TBD and, as we’ve seen, he’s a pain in the butt and isn’t afraid to rescind if he’s not happy with a successor. Sure up the seat that will definitely open and take chances with Hurd continuing to be difficult for whoever the next administration is.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. tsb1991's avatar

    All I’ve found scouring around today for Bob Menendez news is that it sounds like he doesn’t plan to be in today to vote, and that the rest of the week is up in the air. The Senate Ethics Committee did vote to start a review on Menendez post-conviction and whether or not to proceed with an expulsion.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Dequan's avatar

    Senator Baldwin is on stage at the Harris rally in Wisconsin right now. I think we are going to have to look at Harris schedule because we likely are going to see the Democrat home state senators on the state too, missing votes.

    As for Menendez, he is truly a piece of crap if that story is true. Resigning on August 20th is complete bull sh*t.

    Like

    • lilee2122's avatar

      I’m really hoping the Senate can confirm even 3 or 4 judicial nominees before the end ofJuly…Otherwise July will be a waste…Put up the ones that may get a Collins or Murkowski or even Manchin or Graham vote…McConnell will make sure every vote wastes time until the election… Or confirm some GOP senators will be out next week and push Mangi or Kashubai or Amir forward maybe.

      Liked by 1 person

  23. Ads's avatar

    Wait. It took me a minute, but now I’m realizing; if VP Harris was supposed to be too busy to drop by the Senate more often for tie breaking votes on judges, what now? She’s gonna be crazy busy. I suppose the only positive is that for whichever judicial tiebreakers she’s needed for, Chuck will need to schedule them all for one or two consecutive days. But even for that, there’s also a negative; Trump and the rest of the Repubes will now make ALL of the nominees hella carnival level controversial; doubly so for the nominees of color. Unfortunately, this might mean that there’s a greater chance now that more of the nominees will be waiting until after the election for their confirmation votes.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. keystone's avatar

    It sounds like that Aug 20 date may in part be due to him trying to get an additional month of health insurance, since his wife is currently battling grade 3 breast cancer.

    There’s also a question about his pension. I think Joe should give Bob a call and be like, “You need the insurance, fine, stay until the 20th… but if you want your pension, you’re gonna need me to give you a pardon on my way out, and maybe we can do that IF you show up every day and vote yes on my judges.

    Is it ethical, probably not. But the Supreme Court said Joe can do what he wants so, go crazy. Do what ya gotta do.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/23/nyregion/senator-bob-menendez-resignation.html

    Liked by 1 person

    • tsb1991's avatar

      All of the votes will happen after the Netanyahu address, all three votes will be cloture votes on the nominees teed up before the break, with their confirmation votes set at later times.

      My biggest worry next week is if the Senate works on the NDAA, which is what they did leading up to the break last summer, then the whole week is gone for nominations. If we do vote on nominations next week, there are now four nominees voted out of the SJC who weren’t voted out on party lines and could be easily confirmed.

      Not that she’s going to be needed for any votes this week, but I saw your post earlier about Baldwin campaigning with Harris and she wound up voting today, must’ve rocketed back to DC lol.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        That’s actually a good sign. If Baldwin came back to DC for a meaningless (In regards to vote count, not the nominee) vote, that’s good. Maybe Schumer is pressuring them not to miss votes. While I’m much more confident of a Democrat president & senate next year, no reason to be over confident.

        Confirm as many of the bipartisan nominees next week. In September we should have a senate or Kim, First Lady Murphy or some New Jersey caretaker that gives Democrats their working majority back. Then I will assume we will see a repeat of September 2022 where we saw more than a handful of circuit court nominees confirmed.

        Like

  31. Dequan's avatar

    Back to the NDNY, with Hurd & Suddaby on their way out, like @Ethan said earlier, the pickings are slim for both duty stations. And I suspect in the case of Utica, if the nominee’s last name is Rodriguez or any other name that ends in the letter Z, Hurd might threaten to rescind again so that further slims down the possibilities. I can see Schumer & Gillibrand recommending a woman in both cases. If so, I believe the NDNY would become the first of the 93 district courts with all women as active judges.

    Like

  32. raylodato's avatar

    Folks, Harris is not casting any more tiebreaking votes before the election unless there is some way it helps her win in November. She will be campaigning nonstop to contrast with Trump and to win over undecideds.

    We’ll have to rely on R absences before them, but Harris’s attention is elsewhere, as it is for any Presidential candidate. Look at the attendance record of Senators in the recent past who’ve run for President.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I agree with @raylodato. And as much as I am against the senate taking so much time off, with an energized electorate now that Harris is the presumptive nominee, in this case I’m ok with it. She is traveling to Texas next week which looks like she is listening to the strategy I’ve been SCREAMING on this blog for the past year or so. Democrats need to go after some of these so-called unwinnable seats.

      I think Ted Cruz & Rick Scott are in play now. While I think Tennessee is too far gone, I wouldn’t mind at least making Blackburn sweat a little. Particularly since a Tennessee congressman has now said Harris is a DEI pick. I am getting Obama “08” vibes. I remember knocking on doors right here in South Florida to get out the vote for him. Can you believe I didn’t get not ONE angry person to answer the door. And I just didn’t go to Black neighborhoods either.

      Donald Trump is a much worse nominee than John McCain. Joe Biden was only a couple of points behind Trump & he could barely speak three sentences without a gaffe. Harris is going to rip Trump apart over the next 105 days. Trump (Along with other Republicans such as the aforementioned Tennessee congressman) will put his foot in his mouth between now & then on more than one occasion. I very much believe Dems can flip one of the Republican senate seats to offset West Virginia with the right strategy.

      Liked by 1 person

  33. Zack's avatar

    Surprised by the Glenn Suddaby news, as I didn’t see him taking senior status under a Democratic president.
    I agree with Dequan and a couple of others that if there are nominees vetted for Hurd’s seat, nominate them for Suddaby’s seat as he has a firm retirement date and there are no assurances Hurd will like whomever is nominated for his seat so he could choose to undo his senior status again.
    Have to wait and see.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Joe's avatar

    It is strange not to just appoint Kim. Wouldn’t they want the state of NJ to have slightly better standing for purposes of committees? And it’s not like appointing Kim would hurt him during the general elections. Odd decision all around.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thomas's avatar

      Because the Republicans doesn’t allow a voice vote. And it’s doubtful, that they have the votes to confirm a district court judge in the moment. That’s not fine, but these judges are also needed in their offices. Wash is filling the longest open vacancy to date, open since 2018. Should these posts left open? I say no. If they won’t filled this year, nothing will happen next year as confirming the new cabinet members will require much time, and other nominees will be prioritized over them, too. And legistlative work.

      Liked by 1 person

  41. tsb1991's avatar

    Nomination hearing posted for next Wednesday in the SJC. The business meeting in the Homeland Security Committee to vote out the local DC judges was pushed back to sometime next week, and the hearing today was more about the Trump assassination attempt. From what I gathered both the SJC and Homeland Security Committee are meeting tomorrow morning for a briefing on the assassination attempt which may explain the SJC meeting tomorrow being cancelled.

    The hearing for the two DC Appeals Court judges still appears to be on for tomorrow.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Joe's avatar

    Speaking of hearings, a SJC nominations hearing has been set for 7/31.

    I know Byron Conway supposedly has blue slips from both Wisconsin senators, but I am still going wait until I see him at the front table until I believe it.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Frank's avatar

        Do you mean them resigning early is the extreme minority or their views on appointing younger judges? I completely agree with them that both Democrats and Republicans should be looking for more experience with their nominees than is being seen today, and don’t see that as an extreme position.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Overall if you take the number of judges who were under the age of 50 when commissioned, a very small percentage did not last until senior status or retirement age. That’s the reason it’s such a big deal when it happens. Because it is so rare. Even in the case of Trump, he put 230 judges on the court & so far two are no longer judges.

        So, I would much rather take my changes on nominating judges in their 40’s & yes even 30’s so long as they are qualified. I’m sure McConnell would much rather take 228 judges by the end of the year with the average age of Trump judges. I am just happy Biden has responded in kind. I look forward to a President Harris continuing that should she win this November.

        Like

  44. raylodato's avatar

    Dream scenario—Harris wins and Dems net 1 seat in Senate.  On Jan. 3, Biden (w/Harris’s approval) resubmits all pending judicial nominations from this Congress, and Senate confirms them before Inauguration Day.  No Manchin, no Sinema, so no nonsense.  Harris starts her term with a manageable number of vacancies, and Reagan/Bush41/Cinton/Bush43 judges start to leave in significant numbers.

    Oh, and Durbin gives up Judiciary to Whitehouse.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. raylodato's avatar

    Also, interesting fact: exactly half of the active Republican-appointed CCA judges (45/90) are from only 4 circuits—5th (12), 6th (10), 8th (10), and 9th (13).  We can reduce that by 1 if Ritz gets confirmed and Gibbons goes senior, but the key in the next presidential term is to move some of the GOP museum pieces out of the 8th. 

    I think only the 3 Bush43 R judges are likely to leave the 9th (on the GOP side only); the 10 Trump judges will be there a while. 

    And I’m sure I’m not the only one here to have given up any hope on the 5th.

    Liked by 1 person

  46. Joe's avatar

    My hope for a Harris term would be for flipping a large portion of the 4th, 6th, and 10th. There are several older judges on those courts, including many Clinton judges. Harris could make a lot of progress there.

    The 5th and 8th are likely lost causes but there are always seats that could flip. Balancing those courts would probably require multiple D terms.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      There are five judges on the 8th that are eligible for senior status right now. Over 4 years, I would imagine President Harris would be able to send Jane Kelly some help. I think she would get the most circuit court judges on the Federal Circuit. That court makes The Golden Girls look like Destiny’s Child.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I would believe so. Fighting the Jeffrey Epstein of Minnesota should gain her a few Republican votes. She would be going on a court with only one other Democrat appointee so it’s it like she will be a deciding vote so I suspect Republicans would hold their fire further Harris doesn’t court nominees. Plus Katherine Menendez would be in her mid 50’s by the time Loken eventually leaves.

        Like

  47. Mike's avatar

    Another week and another with nothing to show but another tax judge for tomorrow.

    I no longer believe they will be able to confirm all 31 nominees currently in the pipeline, much less any that get announced moving forward.

    Liked by 1 person

  48. tsb1991's avatar

    Schatz wrapped up yesterday. Today’s agenda is that one of the Tax Court nominees will be confirmed, and then cloture on a child safety bill (it’s to concur to House amendments, so the next vote would be outright passage). Biggest concern next week is what’s teed up for cloture motions afterwards. The passage of that bill happens Monday, it won’t happen but it’d be nice if cloture on something else was paired with the Monday vote on the bill (the Monday or Tuesday at the start of the Senate week should always end with a cloture vote to get the ball rolling for the week if I was up to scheduling IMO).

    Chance they do the NDAA after as I said or if it’s nominations, we get cloture on a combination of Vacca/Abelson/Neumann/Saporito, given Schumer is from New York I’m sure Vacca gets some prioritization there.

    On the House side, since the House was unable to pass any funding bills (since they like to stuff them with poison bills which cuts off any Democratic support and then enough Republicans defect), it sounds like after some votes today they’re going to peace out for the summer, so I hope that’s a reason for the Senate not to do the NDAA since the House won’t be around to pass it anyway. It’s also a good reminder that after the August break, there’s the whole government funding runs out at the end of September issue and the possibility of a shutdown.

    Liked by 1 person

  49. Joe's avatar

    If nothing else, I’d love to see some of those less partisan district nominees confirmed. Clear the backlog as much as possible.

    I unfortunately expect September to be mostly messaging bills and spending bills, but hopefully they can work in some judges as well.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to Ads Cancel reply