On July 3, 2024, President Biden announced his intent to nominate Ryan Y. Park, the Solicitor General of North Carolina, to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. If confirmed, Park would become the first Asian American, Native American or Pacific Islander to serve on the court. (1)
Background
Park is the son of Korean immigrants that emigrated from South Korea to North Carolina in the 1970s. His mom attended East Carolina University as an international student, eventually graduating with a degree in library science. The family settled in St. Paul, Minnesota, where Park was raised. He has written about his strict upbringing by his “authoritarian father”, citing examples such as, “marching through the snow, reciting multiplication tables” and having to stand “at attention at the crack of dawn reading the newspaper aloud, with each stumble earning a stinging rebuke. (2)
Park graduated from Amherst College in 2005, receiving his Bachelor of Arts. From 2006 to 2007, he would return to South Korea after he received a Fulbright Scholarship to teach English at a boys’ school. He returned to the United States of America, eventually graduating from Harvard Law School in 2010 with a Juris Doctor, summa cum laude.
Park served as a law clerk for Judge Jed S. Rakoff on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York from 2010 to 2011, Judge Robert A. Katzmann on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 2011 to 2012, and for both U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice David H. Souter from 2013 to 2014. He worked in the Office of the Legal Adviser at the U.S. Department of State from 2012 to 2013 and then as an associate at Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP from 2014 to 2017. Park served as Deputy Solicitor General of North Carolina from 2017 to 2020. On March 18, 2020, North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein announced that Park would become the Solicitor General of North Carolina on March 31st. (3) After his clerkship ended at the U.S. Supreme Court, Park took a short break from his career to be a stay-at-home dad after the birth of his daughter. (4)
History of the vacancy
On January 5, 2024, Judge James Wynn Jr. notified the White House he will be taking senior status upon the confirmation of his successor. This created a future vacancy for his seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit based in Raleigh, NC. President Biden announced his intent to nominate Park to Wynn’s seat. The court was once considered one of the most conservative of the nation’s 13 circuit courts. President Obama was able to put seven judges on the 15-judge court, including Judge Wynn. If confirmed, Ryan Park would be President Biden’s fourth judge on the court that covers the states of Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia.
Legal Experience
In addition to his position as the Solicitor General of North Carolia, Park lectures at Duke University and teaches at UNC Law School.(5)
In November 2019, Park delivered an argument to the U.S. Supreme Court in Allen v. Cooper. Serving in his capacity as Deputy Solicitor General, Park defended North Carolina’s sovereign immunity from a copyright lawsuit, eventually winning the case. (6)
On October 31, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina Oral Argument. As Solicitor General, Park represented the state concerning the UNC’s race-conscious admissions policy, among the factors used in UNC’s holistic applicant review. (7) Both Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (8) were decided jointly on June 29, 2023, with the Court ruling in a 6-3 decision that race-based admissions adopted by both Harvard University and UNC were unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court effectively overruled Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), which validated some affirmative action in college admissions provided that race had a limited role in decisions.
State v. Oldroyd was a 2022 case which involved the 1996 ambush murder of Jonesville, NC police Sgt. Gregory K. Martin. The case remained unsolved until 2014, when the people responsible for the murder were arrested, charged and convicted. One of the accomplices appealed his conviction, and the state Court of Appeals agreed and vacated the defendant’s conviction. Park appealed the case to the North Carolina Supreme Court, serving as lead counsel, which resulted in the decision being overturned and the accomplice set to serve his full sentence. (9)
Statements and Writings
Park has written numerous articles during his legal career.
- What Ruth Bader Ginsburg Taught Me About Being A Stay-At-Home Dad (10)
- The Supremely Old, Supremely Sharp, Supreme Court (11)
- Why So Many Young Doctors Work Such Awful Hours (12)
- My Friend and Boss, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (13)
Overall Assessment
Ryan Park is the third state Solicitor General that President Biden has nominated to a U.S. circuit court of appeals. Unlike the previous two, Toby Heytens and Anthony Johnstone, both of Park’s home state senators Thom Tillis and Ted Budd announced opposition to his nomination. The same day Park was nominated, Senators Tillis and Budd released the following statement…“This nomination is a non-starter and the White House has already been informed they do not have the votes for confirmation. While the White House has fallen short of engaging the advice and consent process in good faith for North Carolina’s judicial vacancies, we still hope to work together to find a consensus nominee who can earn bipartisan support and be confirmed.” (14) Both senators released an earlier joint statement regarding the vacancy, “While we have not yet been able to reach a consensus choice with the White House for the Fourth Circuit vacancy, we will continue our discussions in good faith to identify and agree upon a nominee.” (15)At a senate judiciary committee hearing earlier in the year, senator Tillis gave more detail into the talks with The White House regarding the vacancy stating, “The White House tried to jam him on a Fourth Circuit nominee.” A White House official disputed that characterization, arguing that the administration sought Tillis’ input on vacancies in North Carolina and the Fourth Circuit, including offering four candidates for the North Carolina senators’ consideration and considering four of their candidates. The administration chose to proceed with one of their candidates. (16)
Park’s confirmation may come down to another statement Senator Tillis has made regarding the nomination. Tillis stated he has two Democrat senators that have informed him they will not vote for the nominee The White House choose. With Democrats having a 51-49 majority in the U.S. senate, if Tillis is correct, that would dramatically reduce the chances of Park being confirmed this term. The White House would either need to convince a Republican senator to vote to confirm Park, schedule the cloture & confirmation votes for Park on days where the senate attendance would have one of the senators voting no to miss the votes or convince one of the two Democrat senators Tillis has gotten commitments from to vote no, to change their minds and vote yes. With Park achieving the law clerk trifecta of clerking on all three levels of the federal judiciary, along with being a Solicitor General who has argued cases at the U.S. Supreme Court, he should be able to hit the ground running on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals if he is confirmed. As the youngest of President Biden’s eight Asian American, Native American or Pacific Islander nominees to the federal circuit courts, Park could find himself on the short list for a Democrat president looking to nominate the first Asian American Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court for decades to come.
References
- https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2024/07/03/president-biden-names-fifty-second-round-of-judicial-nominees/
- https://archive.is/sD5M8
- https://ncdoj.gov/attorney-general-josh-stein-announces-transitions-in-solicitor-generals-office/
- https://archive.is/ssHis
- https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/10/28/sffa-meet-the-lawyers/
- https://www.ncbar.org/nc-lawyer/2021-02/ryan-park/
- https://www.c-span.org/video/?523317-1/students-fair-admissions-v-university-north-carolina-oral-argument
- Court will hear affirmative-action challenges separately, allowing Jackson to participate in UNC case – SCOTUSblog
- https://archive.is/jPIGw#selection-1233.91-1233.289
- https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/what-ruth-bader-ginsburg-taught-me-about-being-a-stay-at-home-dad/384289/
- https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/supreme-court-justices-mental-sharpness/470175/
- https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/doctors-long-hours-schedules/516639/
- https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2020/09/ruth-bader-ginsburg-shaped-me-lawyer-and-father/616490/
- https://www.tillis.senate.gov/2024/7/tillis-and-budd-joint-statement-on-4th-circuit-nomination
- https://archive.is/Smi5S#selection-1199.194-1199.393
- https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/22/biden-judges-trump-election-00159358
The Vetting Room 
So who is the 13 year magistrate judge that Tillis was talking about?
Given the police support for Ryan Park (which really appears to be based on a single case where Park just did his job.), this is a vote I’d have in September. I’d force everyone to show their hand on what is a highly qualified Asian-American nominee.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Re: Possible Harris district opportunities
If Debbie Mucarsel-Powell can unseat Rick Scott, then I would expect Rubio to deal better with her and Harris on filling the four listed current and future Florida vacancies. There will be more possible FL vacancies during the first two years of a Harris term/Dem Senate (if DMP beats Scott, then it would surely be a Dem Senate):
Rick Scott has never run in a presidential election year, and has never won an election by a significant margin.
I know this blog is not about politics, and not about Senate elections at that, but it kind of is insofar as the senators are the voters on judicial nominees, and the recommenders of the nominees in the first place, and when they have blue slips to consider, a Dem beating a truly reviled Republican would change the Florida nominee process, fill the vacancies quicker and with better candidates, and allow a better Senate makeup for votes for all Harris judicial nominees.
When Dequan feels he can comment again here, maybe he can provide an on-the-ground take on the vibes in Florida, since the polls show a Senate race between DMP and Scott that is either within the margin of error or within one point, and that was BEFORE Biden dropped out and Harris ascended. I think Florida could surprise this year.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Scott beat a 3 term incumbent in a Democratic wave year. Why does everyone claim he is a weak candidate? As a red state in a positive red environment, FL will go for the Republicans for all statewide offices easily, and vote for Trump by a wide margin.
Back to the judiciary, today’s nominees are symbolic of what I would expect from a Harris administration even from blue states, that being a return to the Obama and other previous Democratic administrations in having a heavy amount of AUSA’s, prosecutors, and other traditional picks, at the expense of the more atypical nominees (at least in comparison) we have seen from Biden.
Here is another good article regarding why court packing is dangerous for our democracy and repulsive to the norms regarding the constitution. https://thedispatch.com/article/what-ever-happened-to-judicial-independence/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scott is a bad candidate because of his record, the fact that he keeps winning but by shrinking margins, and, in 2018, arguably won only because the ballot placement of the Senate race in those Miami-area counties caused many voters to miss the race entirely when voting (not sure if it was 10k or more voters in the aggregate though). Since winning the Senate, he has only become worse by releasing the agenda last cycle that sought to phase out every law (including Medicare and Social Security), forcing each to be reauthorized if desired, which would have the effect of almost all being repealed. I grant you that 2018 was a good Dem year and the Dem (Nelson) lost, indicating Scott over-performed, but the numbers do not seem to bear that out. Florida, also, is always close, and since Obama won it in 2012, has shifted red at the national level, as you know, to match its ruby red status at the state level since the late 90s. I think the big question this election will show is whether that shift made the state deep red or purple with red streaks.
Regarding the types of judicial nominees a President Harris would pick, I think it is logical to conclude that she would start from the Obama/traditional Dem model of AUSAs, corporate lawyers, etc. But I hope by attaining the presidency, and not needing to run for anything ever again but reelection, that she would follow the Biden model and seek to add professional background diversity to the courts. Biden has received widespread praise for this and I imagine reverting to the old ways would not be well-received. But I hope we have this question to seek an answer to in January.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Florida Senate race is on the edge of competitiveness IMO. Scott is clearly favored, but between Scott’s unpopular views (on SS/Medicare, abortion etc) and the abortion referendum, the race could get close if the bottom doesn’t fall on Harris in the state.
But there’s a better chance in Texas, where Allred is outraising Cruz and Harris could keep things reasonably close.
LikeLiked by 2 people
FWIW, DMP outraised Scott last quarter too (almost double). And they have almost the same amount of cash on hand. But Scott is a very wealthy man who can pour his own money in the race to make up for it.
I’ll gladly take a TX win.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Today’s nominees sent to the Senate already. Not that they won’t be acted on until September, but they won’t be in that limbo for a whole month.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not going to lie, this month has felt like a colossal wasted opportunity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why that? They simply had not to votes to bring more controversal nominees forward. At least they have confirmed three district judges and some urgently needed ones at the Tax Court.
Erratic actions like filing cloture for nominees, who have to be withdrawn, increase session spans or cutting down the recess won’t have any effect and would just look Senate Democrats like panic-striken chicken.
And June was even worse if you remember. The failed cloture of Mustafa Kashubhai was the only attempt to confirm a district judge. At least the cloture of Nancy Maldonado was successful. And in May they had already started to confirm nominees for future vacancies, I suspect also, because the present and open ones have not enough votes.
So I can’t see much more they could have done. In September it might be better with Menendez replacement, but they will be busy with legislative work.
We’ll see at the end of the year, what is possible. It’s important now to stay calm, not dreaming of unrealistic things, and concentrate on finishing the open matters on the table instead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Peter Welch wrapped up. Military promotions confirmed on unanimous consent. Senate will vote to confirm that UN Ambassador whose cloture was invoked on tonight and vote on cloture on the tax bill.
We still have the business meeting tomorrow, would think at a minimum both Campbell and Lipez are party-line votes, and we get another blowup about blue slips over Campbell.
Schumer should also send out cloture motions tomorrow for when the Senate gets back in September, if one is sent out for a judge the money would be on Abelson, as that’d be the safest one to vote on. Maybe he files cloture on a party-line nominee or two knowing that Menendez’s successor should be seated the day they return? If not, there’s now 6 local DC judges on the calendar (5 of whom were voted out of the Senate Homeland Security Committee today), two DC Appeals Court Judges, and four Tax Court judges.
Also, the Menendez vacancy is also a good reminder of how important every election is. If you remember, Chris Christie temporarily appointed a Republican to Lautenberg’s seat after Lautenberg passed away, until it was flipped back by Cory Booker in a special election (didn’t have much of an effect as it dropped Democrats from 55 to 54 seats and you still had a 60-vote threshold for nominations during that time). We were 2 or 3 points away from a shock upset in New Jersey in the 2021 elections where this upcoming Senate vacancy would have been at the hands of a Republican governor and not Phil Murphy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Heh, wish judiciary would vote their nominees to the floor six days after their hearing. Hope those DC appeals court nominees can get confirmed without any fuss. One of those seats has been open since 2013!
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s not usual, mostly the Executive Meeting there is weeks later and I suppose they made a deal to vote out the CoA of DC nominees and the postal nominees because the five superior court nominees have missed two planned occations to be votes out, first the hearing was postponed and at the second one the agenda was changed due to the Trump assassination attempt.
But I don’t think even one of the seven DC nominees can be confirmed without fuss according to the voting results. I think Carmen Iguina Gonzalez for the DC CoA is the most critical to be confirmed, as Hawley had grilled her at her hearing.
BREAKING NEWS: Josh Hawley Relentlessly Grills Biden Nominee About ‘Crazy’ Positions By Organization (youtube.com)
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Senate Judiciary Committee just held a hearing on nominees about an hour ago. Some fireworks again. John Kennedy of Louisiana went after another nominee, this time Gail Weilheimer. The case he attacked her on was that of Bryan Lapus, who committed a heinous sex crime in a nursing home and whom Weilheimer sentenced to less than a year in prison. Chairman Durbin immediately stepped in and pointed out that it was a plea bargain.
Still, she’s now a controversial nominee. Will she go the way of Sarah Netburn?
LikeLiked by 1 person
For accepting a plea bargain in a case where the prosecutor probably had insufficient evidence to convict? I doubt it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Mitch, are you in Alaska or Hawaii? I’m just curious why you always seem late to a new story we’ve all talked/been talking about. That hearing was 12 hours ago at this point, not 1.
Stop trying to make all the Biden judges “controversial” simply because you don’t like them. It’s fine if you don’t like them, I’ve disliked my fair share. But I don’t fall for/partake in Republican talking points about them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had to work late again.
These hearing clips are getting air time on Youtube, with plenty of remarks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve been super busy today so haven’t yet had time to comment yet but I can tell you as a Georgia resident that Tiffany Johnson was not at all on my radar. I believe she’s only the second line AUSA (as in not Chief of a division or section) nominated to the courts by Biden with the other being Robert White in EDMI.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know much about Tiffany Johnson, but she seems to be a qualified and traditional choice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you’re talking about Forbes youtube channel posting the clips from Senate Judiciary hearings, they’ve always gotten a ton of view with a 99% Republican audience. I believe Myrna Perez’s hearing has over 2 million views
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hoping that Schumer files cloture on multiple Article III judicial noms on Thursday to queue up senators’ return on Monday, September 9th(!). There will only be twelve (12!) more days in session before the election, including the three bogus Mondays on which only one vote takes place. I’m writing this before the SJC business meeting, but assuming the four district court nominees make it onto the floor (Wise might be a tight vote, depending on attendance — cannot take anything for granted these days), there will be at least fifteen district court nominees on the executive calendar to start September.
Biden needs fifteen more district court judges by my count to match Trump’s district court judge number… so the more that can be confirmed in September, the lighter the lift in the lame duck session, especially when confirming circuit court nominees is such a time suck. While he’s at it, Schumer should file cloture on at least Ritz, Kidd, and Lipez, and use Vance’s absence to invoke it. I’d try to confirm them before recessing for another month, but at the very least, they’d be ready to vote on right away in November.
Obviously, we care about the tax court’s and DC courts’ judicial nominees as well, and Schumer should make time for some of their votes too, which is a delaying tactic and exactly why McConnell is forcing rare roll call votes on them. They should still be voice votes or confirmed by UC. I really wish Schumer would extend the Senate calendar into later nights while they are in town or a Friday (gasp!) or something in the face of Republican tactics. They don’t want to stay either, so he should call their bluff.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I were Schumer I’d absolutely line up Ritz, Kidd, and Lipez for votes that first week in September. I’d then pivot to messaging bills plus whatever spending bills need to pass. Maybe a few district judges could be sprinkled in too, but I would focus on the easier appellate nominees so that the lift during the lame duck period will be easier
LikeLiked by 1 person
SJC Recap:
Blackburn came in and blew up over Campbell, warned about the shoe being on the other foot (completely memory holing the Trump presidency, apparently)
-Campbell and Lipez were party-line votes (audio died during the Campbell vote but safe to assume the vote I’d think)
-Costello was 13-8 (Graham and Tillis)
The votes had to be paused and the committee is on recess since a quorum was lost (you need two members of the minority present for a quorum, typically at a minimum it’s Graham and Cornyn present), Costello I think will need to be re-voted as Grassley’s vote was recorded as a proxy vote despite that he was still in the room and was leaving. Sounds like they’ll re-convene at 11:45, hopefully the video feed returns too.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Glad that Costello got Graham and Tillis both voted for Costello, but tbh I’m kind of disappointed that it was only those two. There is NOTHING controversial in her background. She served in the military. Her professional career has been spent as a AUSA. The GOP didn’t ask her any questions either at the hearing or in the followups. She’s not old but she’s definitely more on the seasoned side. Saporito got more support and he had a decades of being a public defender.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anyone watching the hearing, they finished the vote on 3 nominees then they decided they needed a quorum?. All the Democrats are there, isn’t that’s all that’s needed.
Remember no Democrats showed up at Amy Barret’s committee vote, yet she was voted out 11-0 since Republicans were all present and they were in majority at the time
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think the quorum requirement for the SJC is seven majority members and two minority members. The video ended so we might not see the real-time votes on the remaining nominees if they convene in the next few minutes. The Finance Committee was like this for the Tax Court votes, there was no quorum in the morning when the video was running, and they’d be voted out later in the day with no recording of it, you’d need to wait for the results to be posted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s amazing how many delay tactics the GOP will try to drag things out. It’s never easy. Hopefully these are all voted out with no issues later today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We’ll have to see when the official PDF is posted on the SJC site, but the SJC released this statement of voting the nominees out of committee today. Outside of Lipez and Campbell, who were voted with a quorum present, the votes on the remaining nominees only add up to 20, not 21. Based on these vote totals the missing vote was probably on the Republican side, and that Wise and Henry were also likely party-line votes in addition to Lipez/Campbell:
LikeLiked by 2 people
For a follow-up on this, the SJC did post the audio recording of the second meeting. As I thought, Costello did get voted on again to avoid any possible quorum issues with the first vote (Kennedy or his proxy apparently weren’t present, which explains the missing vote on these nominees). For the other nominees:
-Henry and Wise were party-line votes
-Lanthier’s two Republican votes were Graham and Tillis
-Provinzino’s Republican vote was Graham
LikeLiked by 2 people
Tax bill blocked. Schumer out, and has filed cloture on Abelson and Vargas, and Vargas was a party-line SJC vote.
Also passed the judges expansion bill on unanimous consent! Obviously up to the House now, and who knows if they’ll be willing to pass this by the end of the year.
Abelson and Vargas should provide for at least three Tuesday votes when the Senate returns, and Schumer is probably counting on attendance, especially with Menendez’s successor being appointed by then? There’s also a State Dept. nominee the Senate could vote on that Tuesday whose cloture has been invoked.
We should also get more cloture motions the Monday the Senate is back, maybe Vargas is a sign we’ll get more party-line nominees teed up?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I still don’t totally get why Vargas was party line to begin with.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not a judicial nom but why would Schumer leave the State Dept. nom (Taylor) to linger over the August recess when all that is left to do is the confirmation vote, which can be called any time? They could have voted to confirm her on their way out for break. Now, she has to wait six weeks for an unscheduled confirmation vote in mid-September, and run the risk of her party losing the election two months later and the new president replacing her two months after that. Meanwhile, she could have received her commission tomorrow, gotten started in her role and not wasted this whole next month. I consider this just poor floor management. Perhaps it had to do with Dem attendance, but my back of the envelope math suggests that she would have gotten through due to GOP absences today, based on her cloture vote count. Unless there is something non-public about this decision, I consider it malpractice, which is par for the course in my opinion of how Schumer manages all confirmation votes.
And no UC agreement on any career foreign service officer noms for ambassadorships? I know they’re being held by intransigent Republicans, but before the summer recess there usually are a dozen or more noms confirmed by UC for just such types of roles. We got lower-ranking military promotions yesterday, which is good, but not enough. What a waste.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As mentioned, Vargas was a party line vote out of committee. Not sure what Schumar’s plan is for her but there’s always the chance something with it could fall through when they get back. Might be keeping that State dept vote as a plan B so they have something to work on. Just a guess.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s a blanket hold by Republicans on all non-military promotions through the election as their retaliation for Trump getting indicted.
Taylor’s vote was a party-line vote with Murkowski voting yes, so that means there are up to 48 no votes, so there is a risk of the vote failing if attendance is a bit dicey.
Also, as I’ve said Democrats should be back to full strength when they get back since Menendez’s successor will be appointed and seated, so that’ll give them breathing room on the more contentious vote, they’ve been at that handicap since the Menendez trial.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One would hope more would follow in September. There is a backlog to work through. As I said earlier, with potentially 7 more circuit nominees to confirm, they’d be wise to work on those in September if they do it, because there may be a lot of cabinet changes to work through in the dead period too, particularly if they know the senate is changing hands in January.
Good news on the judges bill. It’s badly needed. My understanding was that the House was fundamentally in agreement with it, but had their own version of it. Hopefully those differences can be smoothed over.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The expansion bill would add 66 district judges:
14 in 2025:
CA: 1C, 1E, 1N
DE: 1
FL: 1M
IN: 1S
IA: 1N
NJ: 1
NY: 1S
OK: 2E, 1N (all temp)
TX: 1E, 1S
11 in 2027:
AZ: 1
CA: 2C, 1E, 1N
FL: 1M, 1S
GA: 1N
ID: 1
TX: 1N, 1S
10 in 2029:
CA: 1C, 1E, 1N
CO: 1
DE: 1
NE: 1
NY: 1E
TX: 1E, 1S, 1W
11 in 2031:
AZ: 1
CA: 1C, 1E, 1N, 1S
FL: 1M, 1S
NJ: 1
NY: 1W
TX: 2W
10 in 2033:
CA: 2C, 1N
CO: 1
FL: 1M, 1N
GA: 1N
NY: 1S
TX: 1S, 1W
10 in 2035:
CA: 2C, 1N, 1S
FL: 1M, 1S
NJ: 1
NY: 1E
TX: 2W
SD CA would add a duty station in El Centro.
SD TX would add a duty station in College Station.
D UT would add duty stations in Moab and Monticello.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Star. If my counting is right, I see 37 seats going to what are currently “blue states:
California – 21
New York – 5
New Jersey – 3
Delaware, Georgia, Colorado Arizona – 2 each
Of course, by 2035 the coalitions may be completely different. Texas is getting 13 new judgeships and for all we know may have two Democrat senators by then.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Would this bill add any circuit seats? I can’t remember, and I have a vague memory the House version does, which I think is one of the different points Joe is referring to.
Also, by adding those duty stations (El Centro, College Station, Moab, Monticello), would that increase the chances of judge shopping by having solo duty stations a la Kacsmaryk and Cannon?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No circuit seats in this bill. I believe the Utah stations would just require the judge assigned to St. George to do some extra travelling; that’s currently a normie GOP Biden appointee. El Centro and particularly College Station add to the possibilities of judge shopping.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Correct. This one has no new circuit seats. The House version would add two to the 9th circuit.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The rest of the votes were finished, audio only.. Wise was party line 11-9
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/08/01/2024/executive-business-meeting-1
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cory Booker wrapping up. A few surprise voice votes (some military promotions, but also a State Dept. nominee and a US Marshal for New Mexico). And that’s all she wrote for the summer. Abelson’s cloture vote will be on the Monday they return.
For judiciary news to keep you entertained for the next month:
On commissions:
-Neumann, Vacca, Saporito, and as of today, Alexakis can take the bench at any time.
-Baggio in Oregon will be eligible to take the bench on 8/21
-Meriweather on Federal Claims and Way/Landy on the Tax Court are also awaiting commissions, in addition to Willoughby on the DC local court
On nominations:
-With this week’s batches, the chances of getting two batches in August are reduced IMO, but any new nominees by 8/14 will be able to make that 9/11 hearing, and nominees will be needed by 8/28 at the latest for the 9/25 hearing
On the Senate:
-Menendez will be stepping down on the 20th, so all eyes will be on who Phil Murphy taps to fill his seat for the year.
-Cornyn right now delivering a speech before the Senate adjourns today about the light Senate schedule (again, I’d have hung around for one more week or have shortened the 4th of July break by a week to make up for the RNC week break). The government funding is up in September as mentioned as well as the NDAA needing to be passed, so those will likely take up some time down the road
And in the middle of the month, the Democratic Convention which should have a much more upbeat feel to it than what it may have been in the aftermath of the debate.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As I typed all that out Cornyn came back out before adjourning and also got an Assistant Defense Secretary confirmed on a voice vote. I’m sure he was the only Senator left in the Capitol but pretty interesting to see a voice vote confirmation from a Senator in the minority party, I thought that kind of stuff was typically verboten.
And on the judges act, best path forward is that the House just swallows the Senate bill, otherwise there’s a possibility of Congress going to conference on it, the House amending it and the Senate needing to re-vote on it, and so on. Can’t imagine the 9th Circuit seats being added in this climate, worst case scenario for Ds is that they’re added, both are filled by Republican presidents and all of a sudden the 9th Circuit is 16D-15R.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have to imagine we’ll see (surprised we didn’t yesterday) a nominee for the 3rd Circuit vacancy before Democrats come back.
I just can’t imagine Biden missing a chance to flip a seat in his own backyard before he leaves.
As for the judicial bill, I have a feeling the Circuit court seats is a battle that will be for another day but if this current bill can get through, it will be a good thing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As we enter this senate break, here’s the status of pending civilian nominations:
1 clotured
2 cloture filed (2 judges)
77 on calendar (31 judges)
28 on privileged calendar
33 hearing held (6 judges, 1 likely hopeless)
86 referred to committee (8 judges, 3 likely hopeless)
Trump sent 52 civilian nominations in August-December 2020, of whom 8 judges, 3 FEC commissioners, 1 FCC commissioner, and 1 board member were confirmed.
Obama sent 78 civilian nominations from August-December 2012, of whom 15 board members, 3 assistant/under secretaries, 3 ambassadors, 2 symbolic diplomats, 1 FTC commissioner, 1 agency administrator, and 1 judge were confirmed that congress.
I’d expect Biden’s end-of-term nominations and their confirmations to mirror Trump’s much more closely than Obama’s.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Also, from September-December 2020, Trump got
1 SCOTUS justice
1 circuit judge
28 district judges
1 trade judge
5 claims judges
1 armed forces judge
confirmed, all by roll call, leaving
2 (very late) circuit seats
1 GOP state district seats
4 split state district seats
38 Dem state district seats
1 trade seat
3 claims seats
2 tax seats
1 DC appeals seat
9 DC superior seats
vacant for Biden to almost entirely fill.
Biden has
7 circuit seats
29 district seats
4 tax seats
2 DC appeals seats
9 DC superior seats
that he could plausibly fill, which would leave (as it stands)
3 split state district seats
30 GOP state district seats
for his successor to fill.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The context on Trump’s circuit nomination though is that every appeals court seat was filled before Barret was tapped for SCOTUS.
For Obama, while he had a Democratic Senate in 2012, it was when you still had 60 votes for cloture on nominations and typically nominations then were voice voted or just had straight up confirmation votes. Obama in 2012 was also hit by the “Thurmond Rule” if I remember despite having a Democratic Senate, the last appeals court judge was confirmed in June of 2012 before Kayatta was confirmed to the 1st Circuit at the start of his second term. Despite not being in control of the Senate Republicans could block nominations with a filibuster as they needed 60 votes, and they did pull the “You can’t confirm judges this close to the election, only Republican Senators and Presidents have that privilege” card when blocking Kayatta in 2012. He had a couple of district court judges confirmed in July and September, and then a whole bunch by voice vote in December in the lame duck after he had won re-election and Democrats not only held the Senate but gained seats.
Looking at Bush’s record on judges, I think he was also Thurmond Rule’d in 2004 despite having a Republican Senate, as his last appeals court judges confirmed in his first term were in June of 2004, not getting another one until June of 2005.
And speaking of Bush, what’s with the small number of judges confirmed when he had a Republican Senate and 55 seats to start his second term in 2005/2006? I count 35 district court confirmations (just 14 in 2005 and 21 in 2006) and 15 appeals court confirmations (granted Roberts and Alito got confirmed then). Were there a low number of vacancies? Laziness? I know there was some hardball with the nuclear option being threatened but the Democratic Senate in 2007/2008 with 51 seats confirmed more district judges (57) than the Republican Senate of 2005/2006, and a decent number of appeals court judges (10).
LikeLiked by 2 people
2006 ended with 56 vacancies, including one ‘senior upon confirmation of successor’. Dems were up in arms at Bush’s progressively worse choices to replace O’Connor, a process that lasted from July 2005 through January 2006. 41 of the 56 opened after O’Connor announced, and Dems certainly slow-tracked confirmations, but only four of the 50 judges confirmed from July 2005 through December 2006 generated significant opposition in terms of floor votes. Frist used the nuclear option to force things, and the gang of 14 agreed to confirm five judges in exchange for five other getting withdrawn. Of the 15 vacancies predating O’Connor’s announcement, 9 had Dem blue slips, a NC circuit seat was in the midst of a 16-year fight between the parties, a 5th circuit seat was in the midst of an 8-year fight between Louisiana and Mississippi senators, the Idaho circuit seat was caught up in a fight over Stephen Trott’s seat (Californian moved to Idaho), and the other two were random district seats in Pennsylvania and Oklahoma. And of course, the nation’s attention was still heavily on the Middle East. Dems cooperated with Bush in 2007-2008 to fill plenty of vacancies, largely because the wanted to prove they were reasonable, and because most of the nominees in that span weren’t as egregiously bad as his earlier ones.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Do we think we might get a replacement for Mangi now that Menendez is gone? I feel like it would have raised some eye brows if they tried to name a new candidate while Menendez was still in the middle of his legal troubles since it would mean either getting him to sign off on someone new or to skip a blue slip from a Dem senator. Thoughts?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s possible Keystone. There is still time. A new nominee would be needed by mid October at absolute latest.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hopefully, Schumer will file cloture when they return Sept 9th, then they can have the first vote Tues afternoon. 5 circuit court nominees ready for final floor votes
Long break now, and for the sports fans out there, the senate returns on the opening night of Monday Night Football.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey all,
I came across this article the other day, reliving all of Trump’s and McConnell’s ramming of CCA judges, and thought I would share it here and get all of y’all’s opinions.
Judges Confirmed to Second Circuit Despite ‘Blue Slip’ Objections | Leadership Connect
The part of the article that really caught my attention was this part:
“The current chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham (R-SC), has said he will continue the blue slip policy for district court nominees, but not for circuit court nominees like Bianco or Park, since circuit courts represent multiple states. At present, none of the six Senators representing states within the Second Circuit (New York, Vermont, and Connecticut) are Republicans. Even this policy has not been followed strictly, as Andrew Brasher was confirmed to the Middle District of Alabama on May 1 despite Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) refusing to return a blue slip and voting no on his confirmation.”
If I can read and comprehend at all, I think a district court judge was confirmed with only one blue slip turned in from a home state senator (Sen. Turncoat… er, Sen. Shelby). So, by that same logic, couldn’t Sen. Durbin cite Brasher’s confirmation as reason he’s bypassing racist mee-maw Sen. Hyde-Smith or even Sen. Johnson’s blockade of Scott Colom and William Pocan, respectively??
I’m not sure if the appointed senator from Alabama at the time (I think Luther Strange) turned in his blue slip with Sen. Shelby and then Doug Jones won the election, then subsequently refused to turn in his blue slip for him. With that said, I think there is a path forward to reforming blue slips to avoid unreasonable GOP senators blocking *all* moderate to liberal judges in their states.
With a new policy in place, Biden or a future Pres. Harris (please dear Lord) can bypass the more problematic senators (Sens. Johnson, Sullivan, Cruz, Hawley, Blackburn, Tuberville, Marshall, etc.,) and either work with the more reasonable ones (Sens. Collins, Murkowski, Moran, Cornyn, Britt, etc.,) or bypass them altogether.
Overall, I found it interesting that the GOP was able to hold a hearing on a nominee and confirm that nominee with only one blue slip turned in, so maybe there is hope. But with Durbin as the SJC Chairman, there is virtually no hope. Just more GOP faux outrage and letting unvetted campaign videos be shown in committee. Shameful
If there were ever a time for a coup d’etat that I support, it would be Whitehouse doing one on Durbin. A guy can dream….
LikeLike
Not sure if this will get posted twice, my apologies if it is, but it said that my comment was awaiting moderation. Never had that happen before..
Hey all,
I came across this article the other day, reliving all of Trump’s and McConnell’s ramming of CCA judges, and thought I would share it here and get all of y’all’s opinions.
Judges Confirmed to Second Circuit Despite ‘Blue Slip’ Objections | Leadership Connect
The part of the article that really caught my attention was this part:
“The current chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham (R-SC), has said he will continue the blue slip policy for district court nominees, but not for circuit court nominees like Bianco or Park, since circuit courts represent multiple states. At present, none of the six Senators representing states within the Second Circuit (New York, Vermont, and Connecticut) are Republicans. Even this policy has not been followed strictly, as Andrew Brasher was confirmed to the Middle District of Alabama on May 1 despite Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) refusing to return a blue slip and voting no on his confirmation.”
If I can read and comprehend at all, I think a district court judge was confirmed with only one blue slip turned in from a home state senator (Sen. Turncoat… er, Sen. Shelby). So, by that same logic, couldn’t Sen. Durbin cite Brasher’s confirmation as reason he’s bypassing racist mee-maw Sen. Hyde-Smith or even Sen. Johnson’s blockade of Scott Colom and William Pocan, respectively??
I’m not sure if the appointed senator from Alabama at the time (I think Luther Strange) turned in his blue slip with Sen. Shelby and then Doug Jones won the election, then subsequently refused to turn in his blue slip for him. With that said, I think there is a path forward to reforming blue slips to avoid unreasonable GOP senators blocking *all* moderate to liberal judges in their states.
With a new policy in place, Biden or a future Pres. Harris (please dear Lord) can bypass the more problematic senators (Sens. Johnson, Sullivan, Cruz, Hawley, Blackburn, Tuberville, Marshall, etc.,) and either work with the more reasonable ones (Sens. Collins, Murkowski, Moran, Cornyn, Britt, etc.,) or bypass them altogether.
Overall, I found it interesting that the GOP was able to hold a hearing on a nominee and confirm that nominee with only one blue slip turned in, so maybe there is hope. But with Durbin as the SJC Chairman, there is virtually no hope. Just more GOP faux outrage and letting unvetted campaign videos be shown in committee. Shameful
If there were ever a time for a coup d’etat that I support, it would be Whitehouse doing one on Durbin. A guy can dream….
LikeLike
Not sure if this has been mentioned but looks like McConnell had a little ole rant yesterday about the “daunting list of radical [Biden-Harris] judges”.
He went after every Circuit nom, including Kidd (who “goes soft on sexual abusers”) and Lipez (Collins supports her, right?)
I like how we attacks Ryan Park “who fought hard to let colleges discriminate illegally against Asian applicants”. Bc clearly Ryan Park hates Asian people. Also, did they even mention the affirmative action case during the hearing? I don’t remember it coming up… which is surprising.
I think it’s interesting that, of the district noms, he only singles out Sooknanan and Kasubhai. Nothing on Ali or Russell, Wise, Netburn.
https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/remarks/biden-harris-admin-judicial-wishlist-marxism-apologists-progressive-activists-and-nepotism-hires
LikeLiked by 1 person