Tennessee Senators and the Biden Administration have now clashed over three different appellate nominations to the Sixth Circuit. The Administration has nonetheless managed to muscle out labor lawyer Karla Campbell’s nomination onto the Senate floor.
Background
Born in Knoxville in 1979, Karla Marie Campbell received a B.A. from the University of Virginia in 2002, and a J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center in 2008 before joining Watson & Renner in Washington D.C. for a year. Campbell subsequently joined Branstetter Stranch & Jennings PLLC in Nashville.
After a year there, Campbell became an inaugural law clerk for partner Jane Branstetter Stranch, who was appointed by President Obama to the Sixth Circuit. Campbell returned to the firm after, where she still practices.
History of the Vacancy
Campbell has been nominated for a Tennessee seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. If confirmed, she would replace Stranch, for whom she had previously clerked.
Legal Experience
Campbell has spent virtually her entire legal career at the firm of Stranch Jennings & Garvey PLLC (formerly Branstetter Stranch & Jennings PLLC), where she worked on plaintiff side employment and tort litigation, including the representation of labor unions in Tennessee.
For example, Campbell has represented plaintiffs suing for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). See, e.g., Vaden v. Dekalb Telephone Co-op., Inc., 21 F. Supp. 3d 901 (M.D. Tenn. 2014). Notably, Campbell represented Andre Deschamps in an ERISA claim against his employer after they failed to honor a promise to maintain ten years of pension credit that he had entered the position with. See Deschamps v. Bridgestone Americas, Inc., 169 F. Supp. 3d 375 (M.D. Tenn. 2015). After the district court sided with Deschamps, the Sixth Circuit affirmed. Deschamps v. Bridgestone Americas, Inc., 840 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2016).
Outside of the ERISA context, Campbell was part of a legal team challenging medical treatments for Tennessee inmates being treated for Hepatitis C as inadequate, including through a bench trial that ended in a verdict finding no violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Atkins v. Parker, 412 F. Supp. 3d 761 (M.D. Tenn. 2019) (Crenshaw, J.).
Campbell also had the opportunity to argue a number of cases before the Sixth Circuit. For example, she convinced the Sixth Circuit to reverse the dismissal of an ERISA action against Cumberland University. See Hitchcock v. Cumberland University 403 (b) DC Plan, 851 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2017).
Political Activity
Campbell has made a number of political donations throughout her career, all to Democrats. This includes a donation to Congressional candidate Odessa Kelly, which drew scrutiny at her confirmation hearing.
Writings
Notable among Campbell’s writings in a paper she authored as a J.D. candidate at Georgetown endorsing a cross-border “labor exchange program.” See Karla M. Campbell, Guest Worker Programs and the Convergence of U.S. Immigration and Development Policies: A Two-Factor Economic Model, 21 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 663 (2006-2007). In the paper, Campbell discusses guest worker programs proposed by then President George W. Bush, and argues that a cross-border labor exchange program would permit a maximization of economic goals for the United States and foreign economic stakeholders. See id.
Overall Assessment
Despite the opposition of her home state senators, Campbell’s nomination has reached the Senate floor. However, here, it joins a long queue of judicial nominations that will need essential unanimous support from the Democratic caucus in order to be confirmed. It remains to be seen if Campbell’s nomination will cross that threshold, given the limited floor time left this Congress.
The Vetting Room 
I like the experience Campbell brings to the table but was greatly disappointed with her answers to the Republicans at the nominations hearing. With her connections to certain interest groups with dubious activities to their name, combined with the donation history, I agree with Harsh that it is very hazy regarding if she’ll have the votes needed to be confirmed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Campbell has a fair amount of, let’s say, baggage, but it doesn’t seem like the GOP knows how to attack her post hearing. They haven’t really gone after the labor union stuff, which could be in part due to the fact that Labor groups and unions are getting a lot of attention right now as we head towards the election. Heck, even JD Vance and Hawley have been trying to create a “man of the people we love unions” image. The union stuff is also hard to explain in a tweet.
They’ve been leaning in on the “let’s lump Ritz and Campbell yell about an alleged ‘back end deal’ with the judges they are replacing” argument. It feels like a weak critique for both of them tbh. It feel like the opposition is about Masha Blackburn’s feelings and less about the nominees.
Unless they can think of a better attack angle, I feel OK about Campbell’s confirmation chances atm.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Schumer needs to clear the circuit court deck in September similar to 2022, perhaps save Mangi. We should be back to full attendance with Menendez replacement & Vance should be out most of not the entire month. As long as Mark Kelly isn’t announced in the next 24 hours as the VP nominee, Democrats should be able to afford two defections from the caucus & still confirm nominees.
LikeLike
Easy A+ pick.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There will be a new vacancy in Middle District of North Carolina. Judge Loretta Copeland Biggs will take senior status at the end the year.
LikeLiked by 2 people
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/standoff-risks-leaving-north-carolina-us-court-at-half-capacity
here is the article that contain the news
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unfortunately I don’t see any movement in the part of Tillis & Budd this year even if every seat in all three districts were vacant. I just hope after the election they move quickly to fill the four district court vacancies.
LikeLike
Wow. Not sure I realized how old the NC courts are
WDNC
MDNC
EDNC
LikeLiked by 2 people
Kind of reminds me of the Nicole Burner nom in so far as lots of potentially sticky/controversial stuff but got through in the end because they couldn’t find a clear attack.
LikeLiked by 2 people
and both labor/union backgrounds
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unions in Michigan and Ohio (both in the 6th Circuit) will be watching this nomination very closely. I’d bring both her and Ryan Park up before the election for messaging purposes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know how this nomination will go. The opposition of both Senators damages Campbell, but maybe not fatally.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Looks like it is down to Walz and Shapiro. I brought up Walz here more than a week ago as a possible darkhorse “no enemies” VP candidate if there was sufficient opposition to the other major contenders.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Can someone please tell me about how judicial commissions work? Once a judge is confirmed and the judgeship is vacant, how do they receive the commission? Who gives it to them, the President or someone else? What form does the commission take (a piece of paper, an electronic record)? Why aren’t more judges commissioned the same day they are confirmed? I would like to learn.
LikeLike
Can someone please tell me about how judicial commissions work?: Too long and varied to get into. So cliff notes version, section 3 article 2 of the Constitution mandates that the president “shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”
Once a judge is confirmed and the judgeship is vacant, how do they receive the commission? / Who gives it to them, the President or someone else? / What form does the commission take (a piece of paper, an electronic record)?: The president (before it was the president via the Sec. of State) gives the judge or literally anyone who has an non-congressional office under the US government a piece of paper (but really a nice and ornate certificate) stating the person’s name, office, date of commission, and president’s attestation (“being of good moral character…” etc.), president’s signature.
Why aren’t more judges commissioned the same day they are confirmed?: This is entirely up to the judge in question, when they can assume the office. Less often, it’s about when the president can actually sign the certificate. A lot of newly confirmed judges like to wrap up their current jobs before taking on their new role. Or go on a really long vacation (looking at you Dale Ho).
Good?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Haaaaaaa
I remember how long we had to wait after confirmation for Dale Ho to get his commission. It was almost as much torture as waiting for confirmation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Gavi. I appreciate the insight.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I just got home and can now access the doc. If you’re interested, here’s the exact wording for Ketanji Brown Jackson’s SCOTUS Justice Commission:
Know ye that reposing special trust and confidence in the Wisdom, Uprightness, and Learning of Ketanji Brown Jackson of the District of Columbia, I have nominated and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, do appoint her Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and do authorize and empower her to execute and fulfill the duties of that office according to the Constitution and laws of the said United States and to have and to hold the said office with all the powers, privileges, and emoluments of the same of right appertaining unto her, the said Ketanji Brown Jackson, during her good behavior. In testimony whereof, I have caused these Letters to be made patent and the seal of the Department of Justice to be hereunto affixed. Done at the City of Washington this 8th day of April in the Year of our Lord 2022 and of the Independence of the United States of America, the 246th, by the President, Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Attorney General, Merrick Garland.
(side note: pour one out for Garland for having to present this to the 8 justices and one justice-designate, never to be one of them.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Cool! Thanks for the share Gavi.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I known there was a DOJ memo about this, but I still don’t like a president signing commissions before the seat is actually vacant. I know it must be legal & per @Gavi’s answer, Biden signed KBJ’s commission on April 8th, but I just don’t understand why not wait until the day the seat is actually vacant since the nominee can’t take the seat until then anyway.
LikeLike
I tried posting this on the Hawley thread last night but I cannot find it, so I may have gotten WordPressed somehow:
When Chief Judge Catherine Eagles (MDNC) goes senior on 12/31/24 and her seat is unfilled, who becomes the new chief judge in the new year? All other active judges have already served in the role previously except for Judge Biggs, who does not meet the age criteria (she’s 70yo), and, as reported above, will also be going senior at some point before the end of the year. Does the chief role revert to the only remaining active judge under age 65, Judge Osteen, even though he has already served in the role? If so, is it just until one of the vacancies is filled and he or she receives his or her commission? Would Osteen be scheduled to serve as Chief for another full term, since becoming a judge and becoming Chief Judge in short order is quite a lot at once?
I’m sure there is a precedent for this in the smaller districts, I just do not know what it is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
”To be chief, a judge must have been in active service on the court for at least one year, be under the age of 65, and have not previously served as chief judge. A vacancy is filled by the judge highest in seniority among the group of qualified judges, with seniority determined first by commission date, then by age. The chief judge serves for a term of seven years, or until age 70, whichever occurs first. If no judge qualifies to be chief, the youngest judge over the age of 65 who has served on the court for at least one year shall act as chief until another judge qualifies. If no judge has served on the court for more than a year, the most senior judge shall act as chief. Judges can forfeit or resign their chief judgeship or acting chief judgeship while retaining their active status as a circuit judge.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
I noted that problem earlier on this court, but now it’s even worse as Copeland Biggs is also leaving. At a specific size, there shouldn’t be appointed judges who aren’t younger than the next senior one.
We see it just at the District of Vermont, just two judges, but anyway, and Judge Reiss had to take over again after a full term due to Judge Crawford reached the age limit as well as assuming senior status, but there are similar situation at the Southern District of Alabama, the Middle District of Louisiana and the Southern District of Illinois.
Other courts with a bench, who might have problems to find a judge younger than 65 years of age are the Western District of North Carolina, Western District of Tennessee.
As we saw, there are possible exceptions from the regulations Gavi has posted, at the Western District of Washington Judge Martinez could stay after he passed the 70 years threshold, and Judge Estudillo could become chief after less than one year in service. But generally it’s better to avoid such a situation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you, @Dequan.
So, if I am reading the text correctly, Judge Osteen will be the acting chief judge for a second tour of duty (under 65) for at least until one year after a new (Harris?) judge receives his or her commission. Alternatively, Osteen could forfeit the acting chief judgeship, at which point the only remaining active judge, Schroeder (over 65), would be acting chief judge for the same length of time.
Hopefully, if Harris wins, Tillis and Budd decide to quickly strike a deal with her to fill the vacancies. Now, if she also wins NC for the first time since 2008 — that would provide some interesting leverage for Harris in whatever package deal on candidates emerges IMO. I also read rumblings in Politico the other day that Gov. Roy Cooper is considering challenging Tillis in 2026. This state is the new Democratic white whale, but one of these years it will flip like Virginia did.
LikeLiked by 1 person
North Carolina now is what I use to say about Georgia. Democrats can win if they invest time & money. Beasley lost to Budd by about 3% & Democrats could barely pick North Carolina out on a map. It seems they have learned their lesson this year. Governor Cooper will be amongst the top senate recruits for Schumer & Peters in 2026. He makes that seat a coin flip & a win would almost clinch a Democrat senate majority with hopefully a President Harris.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Except that Dem have never really stopped contesting NC, except perhaps for a bit in the 1980s. And the countervailing trends (continued rural realignment, continued exurban growth, Tidewater demographic shift, Lumbees) are stronger than their counterparts in GA. They have a chance, as they always have, but it’s been hard to get over the hump for federal races.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think Democrats really contested the NC senate race in 2022, Hillary in 2016 or even Obama in 2012. Biden could at least find NC on the map in 2020 but even he didn’t really make a major push there. I will say Dems did push for Cal Cunningham until they realized he couldn’t keep his pants zipped up so I won’t blame them there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As someone who volunteered on Beasley’s campaign in 2022, I’d push back on the idea that they didn’t really make an effort.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This article says Senate Democrats have 24 days in session before election, but it’s only 12.
https://www.axios.com/2024/08/04/senate-democrats-judicial-confirmations-trump
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even if the writer was (nonsensically) including calendar days, there are only 21 by my count, so I have no idea where the 24 number came from. It’s obviously only 12 session days between now and the election, unless Schumer extends the calendar, perhaps for NDAA or, more likely, CR votes before recessing for the October election season. Perhaps a judicial confirmation or four could be squeezed into such days, if they happen, or at least cloture votes. But I do not expect much from Schumer in this regard; he disappoints with his scheduling.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Harris/Walz
LikeLike
I was hoping for Shapiro or Beshar, but Walz is a decent pick
LikeLiked by 1 person
I saw someone describe the election as now being “America’s fun aunt and America’s fun dad vs a convicted felon and your weird cousin”.
Glad that Kelly will remain in the Senate. I could see Walz being appearing to Tester and Brown voters.
Harris has planned out a pretty aggressive travel schedule. I think she’s hitting all of the swing states this week. Trump, in comparison, is only going to one state and they’re sending Vance to chase after Harris and hold events in the same states and days as her. (Stalking is kind of an odd way to make him seem less weird and creepy). Curious if they are going to continue with this strategy when Senate is in session. If so, GOP would consistently be down a person, which would be helpful for confirmations.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I had my reasons for and against each pick (largely due to special election ripple effects, like putting Mark Kelly’s seat at risk in a 2026 special election when we already have it locked up through 2028), and Beshear IMO would have had the least amount of electoral consequences in Kentucky (the Lt. Gov becomes governor and serves out the term I think, Beshear is termed out in 2027 anyway and given the increased polarization and partisanship in elections Republicans are in all likelihood flipping KY-GOV in 2027 anyway).
My thing against Shapiro was I’d hate to pull one of the party’s prized 2022 winners out of the governorship not even halfway through his term. I think the Lt. Gov there becomes governor but they’d likely be electorally weaker than Shapiro. With Shapiro staying governor he’ll probably be the favorite to win re-election in 2026, even in a possible Harris midterm. It was the same reason I was against Biden nominating Whitmer to VP in 2020, she wasn’t halfway through her term, was one of the party’s star recruits in the 2018 blue wave, and was the best chance I thought of holding the Michigan governorship in 2022.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just spitballing here, but does anyone think that Schumer, who doesn’t go by anything resembling an orderly process, will move Provinzino up in the confirmation queue?
(And yes, I know he’s actually a master strategist who has to constantly calculate how many Ds will be in town and who will defect on any one nominee so he prioritizes confirmable ones).
LikeLiked by 2 people
I could see him moving Provinzino up regardless of Walz being the VP nominee. Schumer will confirm the easy votes first. Now if he is smart, he will look at Vance schedule the three weeks in September that the senate is in session & schedule the circuit court nominees accordingly.
Maybe Walz can ask Manchin to join him on tour a few days during those three weeks to show bipartisanship. Of course that would further ease confirmation if Manchin accepts. That might even be enough to clear the field for Mangi, although I think they are just waiting for the lame duck to vote on him so Tester & Brown doesn’t have to go on record before the election.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Since Vargas was teed up for a vote when the Senate returns, I’m hoping more cloture motions are sent out the Monday they get back for other party-line nominees. Vargas will have cloture and confirmation that Tuesday if the attendance is there (Abelson will be voted on first). Maybe Schumer is banking on full attendance with Vance out which is why the Vargas cloture motion was sent out (as I’ve said the Bob Menendez successor should be seated before Vargas comes up for a vote)? If that’s the case I’d hope they spend the week working on party-line nominees if they know they’ll have the numbers and then save the easier nominees for a rainy day. Maybe another crack is taken at Kasubhai or finally the DC District Court nominees get teed up?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I would like to see some of the following older circuit court of appeals nominations voted on in September.. CCA Mangi, CCA Ritz , CCA Kidd plus 3 to 5 of the district court nominees…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Provinzino will get expedited bc she has bipartisan support. After last week’s hearing, I think Weilheimer might be a party line vote. If that is the case, I could see her getting bumped up the list since she’s friend with Shapiro and, even though he’s not the VP pick, he is the PA king and they wanna keep him happy and campaigning in the commonwealth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do wonder if Manchin (or Sinema too for that matter, though that doesn’t match with what I’ve heard) has any interest in a Cabinet position or Ambassadorship? If he does, that would certainly make things a lot easier in the lame duck period…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Biden already gave Manchin’s wife a 300k a year position. I hope with Walz on the ticket, that would convince Manchin to take some cabinet or another administration position. And him agreeing to go on the road with Walz (Particularly while the senate is in session) is the best way I can think to earn that position.
LikeLike
One thing I realized when it comes to Menendez’s successor is that one of the few things the Vice President does in the Senate chamber these days (aside from breaking ties) is swearing in Senators (usually you see this at the opening of a new Congress but also when a Senator is sworn in from an appointment/special election/etc), so Harris should be in town for the day that happens. If the swearing-in is on Tuesday before the Vargas votes (and not during the dead time between the convening at 3PM and the 5:30PM vote on Monday) Harris would be around if the vote count requires her presence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Completely concur with Gorsuch here regarding the proposed SCOTUS reforms:
https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/4810141-neil-gorsuch-joe-biden-supreme-court-reform-proposals/
LikeLike
This is what I said on July 27 here:
“The pro-Palestinian crowd is going to dislike Shapiro strongly. He also is opposed by teachers unions due to his support for some vouchers.
Kelly did not support the PRO act (although he now says he supports it), which is why unions view him skeptically.
Cooper cannot leave the state because his Lt Gov, Mark Robinson has done shenanigans when he does.
In 1944, the Dems had a variety of choices, all of whom were opposed by some faction of the party… They settled on a guy who had “no enemies”, Harry Truman. Walz might be that guy this time.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Jaime
Yup, you called it. I got Trump’s VP pick right from the start but I didn’t have Walz on my radar at all at the beginning. You were actually the second person I heard mention him for VP. The first was David Hogg. I was totally surprised he picked him as his first choice a week & s half ago on tv.
A few things from the rally today in Philadelphia. First, Walz is a phenomenal pick. I didn’t know a lot about his background but I can see VP Harris did her homework. Second, Governor Shapiro is a super star. He is so good, I can see him being the front runner in 2032. I certainly can see him as a successor to Bob Casey. When he saidI focus on GSD, getting shit done”, it almost brought a tear to my eye watching a Democrat with a backbone.
I know it’s early, but I can see a 2032 ticket including any combination of Shapiro, Whitmer & Moore. The future looks bright for Democrats. Just bring it across the finish line in 91 days for the presidency AND the senate.
LikeLike
I think Governor Shapiro should be the keynote speaker at the convention. I can see him having a Obama 2004 type speech.
LikeLike
That wouldn’t be breaking any new ground; that’s what you’d expect, the party to array it’s most popular or effective pols on the national convention stage. Especially one from a key(stone) swing state -__-. Obama’s 2004 speech was much more of a risk and so, when it was done successfully, offered more reward, because he wasn’t a national politician, merely a state figure who don’t usually get speech time at conventions.
With all the talk about the election, I wish we (the country in general, media) could get to the place in the campaign where the focus is on the types of judges the 2 candidates would nominate. Trump is expected to release a new SCOTUS list, in hopes of replicating his success in 2016.
I don’t think the Harris-Walz campaign will do this. But they can go to town on each of the names on that list.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t believe Harris & Walz will release a list either. I hadn’t heard Trump will release a new list but interesting. That would be a fifth list. If I remember, his first list was light on circuit court judges. He subsequently put a lot of the names on that list on the circuit courts.
I wonder what a fifth list would look like. If closer to his first list, he likely would be telegraphing who he will be looking to elevate to the circuit courts.
Speaking of judges, I have a question about the additional judgeship bill. If Harris starts to peak in the polls too much before the end of the Summer recess, I hope it doesn’t scare off the House from passing it. My question is, does everybody think the House may still pass it regardless of the polls out of fear of Democrats holding the senate, retaking the House & passing a bill for a President Harris to sign that would include circuit court judges (Particularly on the 9th) which this bill doesn’t include?
LikeLike
I don’t expect the do nothing Gop house will want to pass any judicial act before Trump would be sworn in if winning the election.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The genius of the bill is it rolls out over 8 years. Also, if I remember correctly, the first batch in 2025 is majority red state judgeships. Kamala wouldn’t be able to do much to a ton to fill all those unless she is president for 8 years and has a senate majority for much of her tenure.
LikeLiked by 2 people
From @star0garnet
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.
LikeLike
@Dequan
My understanding is that the House version includes authorization for new circuit judgeships. I don’t know how much the prospect of a Harris presidency will affect the House’s action on a senate-passed bill, which only authorizes new district court judgeships that’ll require blue slips, and over a long period of time.
I’m not sure I understand your question so hopefully this’ll answer it: in my opinion, this congress will *not* pass any bill that authorizes new circuit judgeships, especially if those new seats are fillable during the next presidential term. There is a slight chance that such a bill could pass congress and enacted into law if the establishment date is pushed back way in the future. Dems will have no incentives to give Trump more circuit court nominations and Republicans, especially the senators, would prefer hell fire over giving Harris a circuit court nomination bonanza.
Also, no way would congress authorize more circuit court judgeships than recommended by the Judicial Conference, which currently stands at 2 and have been trending downward.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks @Gavi. I was asking my question based on the hypothetical (Trending to possibility) that before the House returned from Summer recess, polls showed Harris was leading by a lot, outside of the margin of error. I was wondering if everyone thought that would scare the Republican House off from passing the bill. Thanks, your answer was what I was looking for in regards to your opinion.
LikeLike
I see. Similar to what I said above, I would think that even with Harris leading in the polls or even winning in November, House Republicans would still agree to the Senate version or pass their own (to be reconciled before the end of the congress) because they’d know that Harris won’t be able to fill most of those 66 seats (blue slips, future).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not necessarily. The GOP could argue that Trump was trailing by a lot in 2016/20, and he still would have a good chance to win.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Saw an article about possible cabinet appointments for a possible Harris presidency and several Senators came up. The only plausible Democratic Senate outcome is another 50-50 Senate, so if she does take office with a Democratic Senate it’s highly unlikely any Senators get appointed to her cabinet (I believe the biggest reason Biden never named any Senator to his administration was that the Senate was 50-50 and any vacancy, even brief, would cause an immediate disruption to Senate control). The article did mention Catherine Cortez-Masto as a possible Attorney General, which should be an immediate nonstarter because Nevada’s Republican governor would flip that seat with an appointment (I also hold Cortez-Masto in high regard for winning in 2022 despite every pundit waiting to sign off on her political death certificate, and her victory clinched Senate control for Democrats at seat #50 and significantly changed the stakes of the Georgia runoff. Definitely my favorite Senate result from 2022, followed by GA and AZ).
I think in a hypothetical scenario of a 50-50 Senate where there’s a Democratic vacancy is that Republicans would technically control the Senate as it would be 50R-49D and a vacancy. John Thune becomes Majority Leader that day (since party leaders aren’t mentioned in the Constitution you don’t need to be sworn in and given an oath of office I believe, it just happens). The big question beyond that is if the Senate would fully re-organize during the vacancy (to give Republicans committee chairs, the President pro Tempore spot, and if Republican Senators preside over the Senate), or if they would wait until the new Senator is seated (especially if they know the replacement is a Democrat and Senate control would revert back) to update committee assignments. Remember, Chuck Schumer became Majority Leader the second Ossoff and Warnock were sworn into the Senate on January 20 along with Harris becoming VP, the new organizing resolutions didn’t come until February so you had Chuck Schumer as Majority Leader but with Republican committee chairs until then.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I saw that article as well. Why would there need to be a temporary vacancy. The senator wouldn’t have to start until the new senator has been appointed & sworn in. It wouldn’t be a Feinstein type situation where a senator died & you don’t want to seem insensitive so you wait until they have had their funeral to name their successor.
I completely agree with you on any Democrat in a state with a Republican governor being a nonstarter. Hell, even if the senate stayed 51-49 that would be a nonstarter.
LikeLike
“The only plausible Democratic Senate outcome is another 50-50 Senate,”
I don’t agree with that. Brown, Tester, and Allred winning is a plausible outcome, and 51-49 Senate. Is it likely, no, but it is plausible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brian Nelson just left his job at Treasury to join the Harris campaign as a policy advisor. I know people have previously mentioned his name on here as a possible 9th circuit nom when Wardlaw goes senior.
I’m not totally sure he’d want to go the Judicial route (getting more of a policy or corp vibe) but if he did, he’d have a good in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He would be my number one choice for the 9th should he want it. He is extremely close to Harris & with de Alba replacing Watford, there is a net deficit under Biden on the circuit (Close your eyes @Gavi, I know factoring in race makes them hurt… Lol). But he may not be interested in being a judge. Perhaps Treasury Secretary is a job he is jockeying for instead.
LikeLike
Commissions update:
-Vacca received her commission on 7/31
-Alexakis received her commission on the 2nd
-Way received his commission to the Tax Court on the 7th, Landy was yesterday
Current pending commissions are Neumann, Saporito, and Willoughby to the local DC court, and Baggio will be eligible to take the bench this month on the 21st.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Vacca got her commission on the same day as confirmation
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chuck Schumer probably walked her confirmation over to Biden personally… Lol
I actually pay close attention to the confirmation & subsequent date of the commission being signed. It intrigues me to see which nominees are ready to go right out the gate & which ones need a lot of time to start their transition.
I remember how happy I was when Nicole Berner had her commission signed the same day. And that was a 5:30pm vote. She was able to sit on a case the very next day. I understand why a non sitting magistrate or district court judge would need more time before starting but I’ve never understood why an existing magistrate or district court judge needs more time. I would assume they would not want to be involved with any more cases so that they wouldn’t have to recuse themselves if it comes up on appeal to the higher court they are now on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There was a big 4th circuit en banc case recently decided upholding Maryland’s ban on assault weapons
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/211255.P.pdf
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just goes to show you how the ideology of a circuit court can be changed over time. I might not be old enough to remember specific examples of the 4th circuit being the Democratic Party’s bugaboo, but I know from articles and old cases that conservatives enjoyed a majority on this court for a while. And after 8 years of an Obama presidency with a Dem senate (and a few senate seat flips within the circuit… Virginia, NC), the 4th circuit overall had a majority of Dem-appointed appellate judges.
The blueprint to reign in the 5th, 11th, and 8th circuit (the 9th was already dealt with under Trump) is there. Only question is, will the Dems and a future Pres. Harris make it a priority?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Two points: That works in both directions, and we saw under Trump, how it turned in the other way. And the other one is, if Harris will really be the next president, and will she have a senate majority to appoint judges to these circuits. As there is nobody eligible for retirement in the next years, the Eleventh is very unlikely, and – last but not least, most of those judges on these courts need to leave, and the bulk of them can easily endure four more years waiting for a possible Republican president. And it’s all but sure, that they even have to wait four more years.
LikeLiked by 1 person