At the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, Keli Neary has represented the Commonwealth in a number of notable suits. She has now been nominated for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.
Background
Neary received a B.A. cum laude from the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown in 2003 and a J.D. from Widener University Commonwealth Law School in 2006.
After graduating, Neary clerked on the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas and then joined the Pennsylvania State Police’s Office of Chief Counsel. In 2012, Neary joined the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, where she currently serves as Executive Deputy Attorney General in the Civil Division.
History of the Seat
The seat Neary has been nominated for will open on January 17, 2025, when Judge Christopher Conner takes senior status.
Legal Experience
Neary started her career at the Office of Chief Counsel for the Pennsylvania State Police. While in this role, Neary defended against Open Records requests filed seeking information from the police. See, e.g., State Police v. Office of Open Records, 995 A.2d 515 (Comm. Ct. Pa. 2010). Neary also represented the Police in grievances and pay disputes. See, e.g., State Police v. State Troopers Ass’n, 992 A.2d 969 (Comm. Ct. Pa. 2010). In one notable case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court denied an appeal argued by Neary seeking to block discovery of personnel records of a state trooper, ruling that the granting of a motion to compel could not be appealed on an interlocutory basis. See Com. v. Brister, 16 A.3d 530 (Pa. Sup. Ct. 2011).
In 2012, Neary shifted to the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, where she has worked since, where, among other cases, she defends the state against constitutional claims. See, e.g., Musila v. Lock Haven University, 970 F. Supp. 2d 384 (M.D. Pa. 2013). Among these matters, Neary represented the State in a bench trial over constitutional claims arising from the plaintiff’s ejection from a Pennsylvania horse racing stadium and the suspension of his horse trainer’s license. See Adamo v. Dillon, 900 F. Supp. 2d 499 (M.D. Pa. 2012). Notably, Neary represented the State of Pennsylvania in a 2016 suit filed by Presidential candidate Roque de la Fuente, who sought a ballot position. See De La Fuente v. Cortes, 261 F. Supp. 3d 543 (M.D. Pa. 2017). Neary also represented the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in defending against a suit arguing that the Takings Clause prohibits the state creation and funding of the Joint Underwriting Association as a medical malpractice insurer. See Pa. Prof. Liab. Joint Underwriting Ass’n v. Wolf, 324 F. Supp. 3d 519 (M.D. Pa. 2018).
Among other matters, Neary defended against suits seeking to change an individual’s Sexual Offender Registration status. See, e.g., Konyk v. Pennsylvania State Police of Com., 133 A.3d 96 (Comm. Ct. Pa. 2016); Dougherty v. Pennsylvania State Police of Com., 138 A.3d 152 (Comm. Ct. Pa. 2016).
Among other politically salient cases she has handled, Neary defended Pennsylvania’s Contact Tracing and Mask Mandate programs developed during the Covid-19 pandemic. See Parker v. Wolf, 506 F. Supp. 3d 271 (M.D. Pa. 2020). She was also part of the legal team defending the results of the 2020 Presidential election in Pennsylvania against suits brought by former President Trump seeking to throw out lawfully cast votes. See Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Boockvar, 502 F. Supp. 3d 899 (M.D. Pa. 2020). Neary also participated in suits against Pennsylvania’s indoor dining ban. See M. Rae, Inc. v. Wolf, 509 F. Supp. 3d 235 (M.D. Pa. 2020).
Overall Assessment
Neary’s time in the Attorney General’s office has given her both extensive experience litigating in the Harrisburg Division of Pennsylvania’s Middle District as well as participation in several particularly controversial cases, involving both Covid-19 related restrictions and Pennsylvania’s election regulations. It is likely that Neary will draw some opposition to her confirmation based on her positions in these suits, although, acting as an advocate, Neary can likely draw a distinction between her own positions and those of her client.
The Vetting Room 
I had a half of dozen other nominees I was hoping for in the EDPA. None of the ones picked are bad but definitely was expecting younger & more progressive picks. But hopefully all get confirmed before Thanksgiving to get the court up to full staffing again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As mentioned in the article, Neary has been involved with lots of cases involving the 2020 election and Covid-19 mandates. She’s also linked with former Gov Wolf and current Gov/former AG Shapiro, who are popular Dems that the GOP politicians do not like.
Given what we saw with them attacking Ryan Park (and Josh Stein) for Covid-19 lawsuits, I wouldn’t be surprised if the GOP uses this as an opportunity to attack both Neary but also to get some hits in on Shapiro.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I believe this is the second EDPA nominee that is really close to governor Shapiro. I wonder if Fetterman leaning on him for recommendations.
LikeLike
She’s a nominee for MDPA, not EDPA
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah that’s right. Even more surprising since I would assume Fetterman is closer to that part of the state than the EDPA. Well either way she’s replacing a GW Bush judge so a nice flip right before the inauguration. She may be the final commission Biden signs before he leaves office.
LikeLike
While I expect Brindisi to still take most of the hits, Neary’s work on COVID related issues will likely draw fire as well, not to mention as a couple of others have said her close ties to Shapiro.
The Republicans know he will be a nominee down the line and want to start their attacks on him now.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I don’t think Fetterman and Shapiro really get along that well. If the rumors are true anyway. Any connection may just be coincidental. Of course, Fetterman was Lt Governor, so I assume there is a lot of crossover in the people they know.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Cosign everything @Joe said.
Neary’s worked with the AG office since 2012. Shapiro came in as AG in 2016, so she actually predated him. She’s worked under multiple AGs. Shapiro was her boss at one point but I don’t know enough about their dynamic to say that they’re close. But yeah, the covid and election stuff will prob come up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There was a good article on the lack of relationship between Shapiro and Fetterman. Fetterman doesn’t get along with the leaders of the PA party at all. I’m pretty sure that Neary is a Casey pick.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/inside-rift-could-define-future-225544673.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump managed to pack ED PA (8/10), Biden’s managed to save MD PA (hopefully 4/6), and Biden’s managed a significant impact on ED PA (hopefully 7/22), but the next president may have an even bigger impact of ED PA, with 10 judges eligible for senior status during their term. The only court with more senior eligibility next term is CD CA (11).
LikeLiked by 1 person
And if the judges expansion bill passes, the CDCA is the only court that adds at least one judge each year the bill adds any. Hopefully both California & Pennsylvania will have two Democrat senators each of those years along with a President Harris for the next 8 years to fill most of those seats.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Of the 8 WDPA Trump judges, 2 of them are Dems (Baxter and Colville) and Horan is a 70 year old Republican who was originally nominated by Obama. I’m not sure what to make of Ranjan. When he was first nominated, I feared he’d be super right wing, but he seems like he might be moderate-ish (I’m not totally sure yet).
If Harris is elected, and they hold the Senate. I think Hornak will go senior next year once his term as Chief ends and Baxter becomes eligible in 2028.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Nicholas Ranjan was one of the over 60 federal judges that ruled against Trump’s bs attempts to overturn the election. I’m not saying he’s the second coming of Dale Ho, but he certainly is a reasonable Trump judges that isn’t an outright Democrat like the two you mentioned.
William Stickman may be the only right winger on the court. Sadly he’s the youngest but out of 8 picks, that’s still not bad. Maybe a President Harris can get lucky in her finally year & any combination of Baxter, Hornak and/or Horan will leave. All three will be eligible in 2028 albeit Horan is a Republican.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah, it’s not nearly as bad as it looks on paper, but the only worse situations on purple-blue district courts are the NC courts, SD GA, and debatably MD GA and WD MI.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Actually to me, the worst of the 93 districts is the NDTX. Only one active Democrat appointee, 4 GW Bush judges & 6 Trump judges. Some of those judges include Matthew Kacsmaryk who is arguably the worst district court judge & Brantley Starr who would probably be the worst judge on the majority of the 93 district courts.
Ada Brown might be Trump’s smartest district court judge. She also a conservative black woman that’s is under 50 so she could be potentially a threat for elevation if Trump won. And we haven’t even gotten to Mark Pittman or Reed O’Connor yet. There’s one vacancy so hopefully a President Harris can work out somebody sane to put on that court. 4 other judges are eligible to retire so there’s room for hope.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Agreed..WDPA is mostly Trump elected… I’m glad to see the MDPA and EDPA district seats beefed up by Democrats…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, ND TX is certainly worse, it just depends whether or not you consider Texas to be purple yet.
LikeLiked by 2 people
While I don’t think Texas will go blue this year, I do believe Harris should make a push for it. Particularly work Allen up against Cruz. She certainly needs to make a push for Florida with Rick Scott up as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why is Rick Scott in trouble? Florida is a red state and he’s won every election he’s contested.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I didn’t say Rick Scott is in trouble. I said Harris should make a push. And Rick Scott has won each of his elections in off year elections & all were close. This is a presidential election with both abortion & marijuana on the ballot with initiatives & he’s running against a Latina in a state with a high Hispanic population. Plus the latest poll shows Harris only down by 5% to Trump & Democrats haven’t even had their convention yet, not any of the debates. So I think if there’s a chance to knock him off, this is it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The best shot to knock off Scott was 2014, and Crist came just over 1% from doing so. The state would be drastically different today if Crist had won (and he would have won reelection in 2018).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think yes Florida is GOP territory but with women’s rights in jeopardy and esp the abortion rights agenda that could make certain red state incumbents fair game to vote out of office…One can only hope…. Women won’t go back!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Menendez is no longer running as an independent for the NJ Senate. https://newjerseyglobe.com/congress/menendez-ends-independent-re-election-campaign/
LikeLiked by 3 people
Obama appointee Andrea Wood just issued the following ruling…
DNC protest can’t expand
CHICAGO — A group of civil rights organizations’ motion to extend their pro-Palestine protest march route, which will take place around the Democratic National Convention, was shot down by a federal court in Illinois. Their current route keeps the protestors blocks away from one of the main convention spaces, and they sought to extend the route closer to the DNC. The court says the proposed route is appropriately tailored to balance the city’s interest in ensuring attendees’ safety and managing traffic with the protesters’ First Amendment rights.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As we look into the next week, not much new and exciting on the judiciary front:
-We’re still awaiting commissions for Neumann, Saporito, and Willoughby. Baggio will be eligible to take the bench on 8/21 next week.
-To follow up on my post I made last night in the previous thread about the wave of appeals court nominees confirmed in September 2022 (7 in total), if that happens this year realistically it’d be 4 (Kidd, Lipez, Ritz, Campbell. Mangi wouldn’t have the votes, Park needs an SJC vote, and there’s obviously no DE 3rd Circuit nominee). Kind of makes me wish the Senate would return the Tuesday after Labor Day and you could get some schedule in place to clear all four that week. Also a lot depends on when the Senate in September turns to the government funding.
-While we do know the successor to Bob Menendez this Congress, his last day is officially on the 20th. Probably the biggest impact of Phil Murphy winning re-election in 2021 will be his appointment to this seat and keeping it Democratic for the rest of the Congress, could make all the difference in getting party-line nominees confirmed (I remember one issue brought up in the recall attempt against Gavin Newsom in 2021 was that control of the Senate could have hinged on that recall with a 50-50 Senate if anything had happened to Feinstein that year). Even Hochul couldn’t possibly screw up a Senate appointment, but again, one of the biggest reasons to vote for her over a Republican would be Schumer/Gillibrand insurance lol.
-It’s still a long way to go but IMO if by election day Harris emerges as a clear favorite to win, the most important polls would be OH/MT Senate (and honorable mention to TX/FL if Democrats could make any inroads there). The worst part about this election is that Harris could win, Democrats seem to be in a position to sweep the swing state Senate races (MI, WI, PA, NV, AZ) and still lose seats/control due to the red state seats.
As far as the Democratic convention next week, the only puzzling part of the speaking schedule for me is that Obama speaks before Bill Clinton, I thought you’d want Obama after Clinton given his presidency is more recent, Clinton doesn’t have the fastball he used to have (although I still think he’s younger than Biden), and Obama can get a crowd more riled up than Clinton can.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess you are right. Even Hochul couldn’t screw up a senate appointment. That is the ONLY reason I could see voting for her if I was a New York resident. I literally would have to hold my nose in the voting booth though… Lol
I don’t understand why Clinton is speaking after Obama either. That one is puzzling to me as well.
LikeLike
Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump were all born in 1946. Trump is the oldest with a June birthday, Bush a July one, and Clinton an August one. All of them are almost 4 years younger than Joe Biden, who was born in late 1942.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Since we are on the six-week senate recess & it looks like Harsh is just about out of nominees to do a write up on, I thought I would send out an updated list of first choice, A+ nominees for any circuit court opening in a now-President Harris administration. Of course, these are first choices with a democrat majority in the senate. I will only include seats that can have a vacancy before 2029 for any reason other than an unexpected death, illness, resignation or impeachment. I will include the approximate year of birth based on graduation dates. A few of the circuits I can’t pick just one;
DC – Deepak Gupta (c. 1977)… Elizabeth Prelogar (1980)
New York – Dale Ho (1977)… Ria Tabacco Mar (c. 1981)… Natasha Merle (1983)… Melissa Murray (1975)
Maryland – Ajmel Quereshi (c. 1981)
Virginia – Eden Heilman (c. 1978)… Jamar Walker (1986)
West Virginia – Carte Goodwin (c. 1974) (It’s not so much he is my number one pick on paper. It’s more so the Goodwin’s are the richest family in the state. I would like to keep them happy so perhaps they can keep Democrats in the game for the next decade or so against a flawed Republican candidate. So this is more of a strategic pick.
Louisiana – Angel Harris (c. 1984)… Jamila Johnson (born c. 1982)
Mississippi – Scott Colom (c. 1982)
Texas – Rochelle Mercedes Garza (c. 1984)… Lee Merritt (c. 1983)
Michigan – Michael Carter (c. 1979)… Leah Litman (c. 1984)… Philip Mayor (c. 1980)
Ohio – Marques Hillman Richeson (c. 1983)
Illinois – Nicholas Gowen (c. 1978)… Nico Martinez (c. 1985)… John Rappaport (c. 1980)… Kate Shaw (c. 1979)
Wisconsin – Jarrett M. Adams (c. 1981)
Arkansas – Breean Walas (c. 1980)
Minnesota – Lisa Beane (c. 1980)… Karl Procaccini (c. 1983)… Liliana Zaragoza (born c. 1988)
Missouri – Mohammed Ahmed (c. 1979)
California – Monica Ramirez Almadani (c. 1979)… Jessica Bansal (c. 1981)… Lucero Chavez Basilio (c. 1985)…Melissa Goodman (c. 1978)… Bryant Yang (c. 1982)
Nevada – Patricia Lee (c. 1975)… Alina Shell (c. 1980)
Washington – Marsha Chien (c. 1983)… Jamal Whitehead (1979)
Colorado – Jason C. Murray (c. 1986)
New Mexico – Aja Brooks (c. 1983)… Shammara Henderson (c. 1982)
Utah – Lindsay Barenz (c. 1977)
LikeLike
@Dequan, honestly for West Virginia, Carte Goodwin would probably be my third choice for the 4th circuit. I’d put Sarah Wagner (born c. 1977) and Gabriele Wohl (born c. 1982), both also former clerks to Judge Robert Bruce King, ahead of Goodwin.
In terms of district court seats in West Virginia, I’d say Sarah K. Brown (born c. 1983) and Blaire Malkin (born c. 1979) are easy A+ grades.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I notice that Carte Goodwin has made some donations this year to the Harris For President and Harris Victory Fund.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Which exactly backs up my strategic placement of him as my number one for West Virginia…lol
LikeLike
The EDPA having a lot of Trump appointees doesn’t bother me because it’s likely we will soon have a Democratic majority on the 3rd Circuit that would swat down garbage from any Republican hacks on there.
NDTX is a whole different story because the 5th Circuit not only welcomes garbage from the Republican hacks, it encourages it, and that was the case even before the Trump judges with George W Reed O’Connor trying to take down the ACA by himself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Don’t forget that some of those Trump appointees are Democrats thanks to Casey.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Got wordpressed but IF Democrats keep the Senate and take back the House, there has to be reform to outlaw judge shopping.
One or two unaccountable hacks shouldn’t be setting policy for the entire country.
LikeLiked by 5 people
The Senate races look very promising right now. Sherrod Brown is running against a terrible opponent, I think he will be reelected. Dem incumbents and candidates in one other battleground states are running impressive numbers.
My main concern is getting Jon Tester reelected in Montana. That one is gonna be a tough race. I think he can squeak by, but gonna be tight. We have I believe a real shot in flipping Texas, so paying a close eye to the fundamentals there. Feeling less positive about Florida, but we’ll see what happens in the next two months.
Keeping a Dem Senate is imperative to be able to keep confirming judges. If Dems hold the Senate, I would like to see Sen. Klobuchar’s proposal taken up that will allow for multiple nominees to be considered at once. Would also like a rule change to cut down on cloture time for appellate court nominees.
I also wonder if Dems hold the Senate, maybe Sen. Murkowski decides to leave the party and become an Independent and caucus with the Dems. What are everyone’s thoughts on the Senate races, or the state of a future Senate, going into the DNC convention this week?
LikeLiked by 3 people
I literally just wrote to @Ethan about a half hour ago I’m just a little worried about Tester. I sure wish Barnes had pulled through in Wisconsin in 2022. I would feel a whole lot better about the senate if he had. Tester will need to bring out the Native American vote heavenly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
WIthout a doubt Tester is the most vulnerable incumbent running. It’s going to take some luck with GOP mistakes to get him over. But Montana will have an abortion referendum which should help there. It’s also time to start taking TX and maybe FL more seriously. Cruz and Scott are unusually weak incumbents.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Mike,
From the rosy picture you paint of the senate races to Murkowski caucusing with Dems (?), this is all super wishful thinking. But you’re not the only one, in fact, you’re well in thee majority here.
I care about judges. This means I’d love to see Cruz defeated. But:
1: I do not think that will happen, not in the year that Trump will be on the same ballot. Texas is not Georgia. Don’t be confused though. As I’ve said before I want Dems to make a serious play there and in Florida (another state that Dems will certainly not beat Scott, wishful thinking aside). Dems are flushed with cash and putting money into these “reach” races will make Republicans sweat.
2: The Republicans’ likely leader in the Senate will be the other TX senate. Even if Alred does the improbable, I doubt we’ll see Harris (if elected) go over Cornyn’s wishes on judges in his state. So a Dem senator from TX may give us the same Irma Ramirez-type judges that 2 of the most conservative senators have given us.
When it comes to the Senate and Dems continued ability to confirm judges, I think the best you can hope for is 50-50 with (hopefully) VP Walz’s tie-breaking vote. On paper, a 50-50 senate in 2025 would look better for Dems than the 50-50 senate of 2021 because no Manchin and Sinema. But that wouldn’t be accurate on *judges, since no Dems broke ranks on those confirmations during that period.
I don’t begrudge the jubilation folks are feeling. I totally get it. What I’ve been curious about is the poll hypocrisy. Earlier in the summer when Trump was at his highest in the polls, folks in here were convinced that Biden was still going to win, polls be damned. In fact, a super smart person commented on this blog that 8 in 10 (80%) of Dems think Biden is going to win, and same number for the senate. Now the polls are better for Dems and all of a sudden you can start believing in them again? What gives?
LikeLiked by 1 person
To be fair, I was never on here questioning the polls pre-Biden debate and drop out, I’m just pointing out Dems are polling very well in the Senate races, Tester aside. There is definitely an uphill battle to retain the Senate, no doubt there. And yes, flipping the TX seat is not going to be easy. That said, I feel the momentum is on our side for the first time, in a long time.
I actually don’t have a problem with consensus nominees in states like Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, etc. But that means Republican senators need to work with the White House. That didn’t really happen much in TX as it did in LA. My view is that I’d rather have centrist nominees in red states than Federalist society hacks. Look no further to the TX district courts for said hacks….
I think if Dems win the presidency and retain the Senate, you are going to see a bunch of senior status announcements, especially from the remaining Clinton judges. If we can stay focused and get nominees out fast and furious, I am confident that a Harris administration will have a strong and lasting impact on the federal judiciary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Gavi
I definitely agree with you about Dems should make a play for Texas & Florida. Even a loss today could lead to building a future win (Similar to the aforementioned Georgia).
I disagree with you about if Afred wins, we wouldn’t get better than Ramirez types (If we are talking about the 5th, not district courts). Why would a younger, more liberal, less of a senate institutionalist than Biden, Harris be afraid to do in Texas what Biden did in Montana – 9th. North Carolina – 4th & THREE times in Tennessee – 6th??? Do you really think Harris is that close to Cornyn?
As for your last point about the polls, you are forgetting one key point. I for one thought Biden would win all along for a few key reasons. even when the polls were bad Let’s go through them step by step & let me know which ones I have been wrong on;
LikeLiked by 1 person
John Thune is the favorite to be Senate leader, not Cornyn.
I’m not a polls guy, then or now. But yes I still believe that even post-debate Biden would have beaten Trump at the end. But Harris is clearly a much better candidate than I expected. Voters would have voted against Trump vs Biden, but they’re going to vote for Harris.
Also I just immediately ignore the political projections of 2022 doomers who told us that the GOP would get the Senate and a massive red wave was coming. Those people seem to be the same ones predicting doom this time around too. One of these years they’ll be right, but hopefully not for a while.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’m sometimes really astonished about wishful thinking and unlimited optimism. I know, nobody wants to discuss about the fact, that Harris will move in the White House, but without senate majority, and can appoint 10 -15 district judges per year – no circuit court and no SCOTUS, or even worse, Trump will move inside the WH again with a senate majority. That’s not pleasant, but both realistic. Updates of judial wishlists and speculations of a possible transformation Harris could do in eight years of her presidency, before she’s even elected are – strange – and all that at a time, where much is much important business to do until the end of Biden’s term. And that won’t be easy.
That was the president, for the senate, a 50-50 seems also the best possible outcome. I think we can book out Manchin’s seat, therefore most think Allred would unseat Cruz, what would be great, but I also won’t bet on it. On Tester and Brown I fear, that just one of them will be re-elected. Baldwin, Casey, Rosen, Gallego and Slottkin are more likely to stay than to go, but it needs just one of them and the majority is gone, ,too, so I’m not convinced that Chuck Schumer is in control of the calendar next year.
Some optimists then would say, we take it back in two years, because North Carolina looks promising. I don’t see that. The last senate race was quite close, but with incumbent retiring, for the next two times there is an incumbent running, the supreme court have lost its Democratic majority, and there is a solid Republican majority in both chambers, too. Maine and Wisconsin are the only other likely pickups in the next four years, but holding seats in Georgia etc. also achieved simultanously.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“That was the president, for the senate, a 50-50 seems also the best possible outcome. I think we can book out Manchin’s seat, therefore most think Allred would unseat Cruz, what would be great, but I also won’t bet on it. On Tester and Brown I fear, that just one of them will be re-elected.”
This is the same logic that we got from the 2022 doomers who told us that the Senate was lost and a red wave was coming. 50/50 is absolutely not the best outcome. The Senate races are not independent, and in a good year all boats could be lifted. If 2024 is good enough that two of Brown, Allred, and Tester are winning, there’s almost zero chance that any of the swing state Senate Democrats will lose.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Jamie
Gavi already wrote a comment about ‘vibes’, I completely agree to, but beside that, the situation was much more favourable in 2022 on the paper, too, so I don’t see myself as ‘doomer’.
The Democrats had a significant better chance to pickup three GOP seats in Wisconsin, Pennsylvannia and North Carolina, while Arizona, Georgia, Nevada and New Hampshire were in trouble on the other side. Today there are much more Democratic seats shaking, so three points:
So distributing the bear’s fur before it is killed is never good.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As it stands right now, best case scenario is we have a 50/50 senate.
Would love to be wrong and see us hold onto it outright but not likely to happen.
Those misses in WI in 2022, NC in 2022 and 2020 and FL in 2018 are finally going to bite us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
WI in 2022 and NC in 2020 certainly. FL in 2018 would have helped us the past 4 years, but I’m dubious we could have held an open seat in 2024. TBH, we have a better chance against Scott than the kind of GOP candidate we would have gotten in an open seat.
I also strongly disagree that 50/50 is the best case scenario. 51/49 with TX. Cruz is an even worse incumbent than Scott. If Harris keeps it close there, Allred has a decent chance to win. It wouldn’t shock me at all if TX moves to tossup by election day.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I also strongly disagree that 50/50 is the best case scenario. 51/49 with TX.”
Before I get to your quote above, I’ll respond to the comment you made a couple times about the “2022 doomers.”
I was one of those “doomers,” based not on vibes, which is what a lot of folks here base their electoral feelings on. But based on the fundamentals of elections, specifically mid-term elections. From the polling averages to the election models right up to November 2022, it wasn’t so far-fetched for people to think that the incumbent president’s party was going to lose. Lest we forget, Dems didn’t exactly run the table: putting aside those near-misses, which happens every single election cycle (Nelson, NV gov, NY House races, etc.), Dems still lost the House. So yeah, those doomsaying wasn’t baseless nor were they 100% wrong in the end.
Now to your quote above. What, besides vibes, gives you such confidence in making this prediction? What is it that Bill Maher likes to say, is it something that you don’t know for a fact… you just know it’s true?
My own very wild, far-fetched read on the race is that Texas isn’t going blue in any statewide race the year that Donald Trump is on the ballot there. Thus, a 50-50 senate is the very best Dems can hope for.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“From the polling averages to the election models right up to November 2022, it wasn’t so far-fetched for people to think that the incumbent president’s party was going to lose.”
Those polling averages were loaded with wonderful polls like Rasmussen and Trafalgar which were basically GOP hack polls. And those models also gave high ratings to those kinds of polls and gave them too much weight, while also including pundit ratings. Basically garbage in, garbage out.
It “wasn’t so farfetched” only because the pundits and media told us that there was going to be a red wave without considering that they may be wrong.
No Dems didn’t sweep everything. But given what these doomer pundits were telling us, yeah they were totally wrong. Predictions were 240+ in the House and 51+ in the Senate. And they ignored the possibility that some of Trump’s candidates would brutally underperform (and those same people are now telling us that Trump is going to win easily).
LikeLike
That “Nelson” should be Mandala Barnes. Absolutely no idea how I got Nelson…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I , myself, am a little worried we will be leaving 2 vacancies open on the 3rd circuit court of appeals without filling either of them by this administration..Kent’s due to go senior or retire january 15th. I see no nominee for that cca seat yet…
LikeLiked by 1 person
This article about James Ho’s life story was a very interesting read. Learned a lot that I previously did not know and only made me further hope he never gets a seat on SCOTUS. https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/james-ho-supreme-court/
LikeLiked by 1 person
At least if Harris serves two terms he probably ages himself out of SCOTUS contention, right? He’d be pushing 60 by that time. Even among his DC Circuit appointments, Rao would be near 60, Katsas would be in his late 60s by then, leaving just Walker as a SCOTUS candidate.
Still, by 2032, a lot of Trump’s worst district court nominees would still be at a decent enough age (early-mid 50s) to be appeals court candidates.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Apart from Ginsburg, we haven’t seen anybody join SCOTUS past their 56th birthday since Powell. If Harris wins and gets re-elected, that would only leave 11 GOP circuit judges young enough in 2033:
Hunsaker, 55
Bumatay, Grant, Menashi, Oldham, 54
Bress, Luck, Murphy, 53
Brasher, 51
Rushing, Walker, 50
LikeLiked by 1 person
I found this 2019 interview w Frank Easterbrook.
Some quick context. Easterbrook has a long time love of Alaska and has a house up there that he frequently visits. For years, he was known as being a confirmed bachelor, but ~ 10 years ago he reunited with an old high school classmate (who lives in Alaska) and they got married. HIs wife, btw, seems to be a big Dem and her friend, Morgan Christen, conducted the ceremony. I think the wife might still her time between AK and IL.
Interviewer: You are spending a fair amount of time in Alaska, despite the fact that it’s in the Ninth Circuit. I hope you can reassure us, though, that you will continue to teach and continue to sit on this bench for many, many years to come
Easterbrook: I’ve been invited to come sit on the Ninth Circuit, and I have declined, saying, I have no real desire to spend my career writing dissenting opinions on the Ninth Circuit, when I could be writing majority opinions on the Seventh Circuit.I was worried, initially, given the high reversal rate of the Ninth Circuit in the Supreme Court, that my wife and I had our marriage solemnized in Alaska by a judge of the Ninth Circuit who both of us had known for a long time (my wife for a much longer time than I). I was worried that the Supreme Court was going to summarily reverse our wedding! But the statute of limitations came and went, and we are still very happily married.
https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/Transcript%20Judge%20Easterbrook.final_.pdf
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s wild. I had no clue a man of Easterbrook’s age and leanings would be bisexual. Do you have any sourcing on the claims he was well known as a ‘Confirmed Batchelor’? I’ve never heard that before.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh, no, no. Sorry, I didn’t mean that as a euphemism or a comment on his sexuality. He was just single for a long time.
Above the Law actually has a fun article about how all of the 7th Circuit judges were suddenly getting married at the same time.
https://abovethelaw.com/2013/03/judges-in-love-three-seventh-circuit-judges-getting-married/
LikeLiked by 3 people
I don’t know if Keystone meant “confirmed bachelor” as the euphemism it is for being a closest gay/bi man. I’ve certainly never heard that about Easterbrook before.
I just know that if Harris wins, he’s 1 of 5 remaining active Reagan circuit court judges I can’t wait to see replaced. To be fair, he’s not the worst of the 5, but I’d love to see him replaced nonetheless.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Keystone, you beat me to it, Ionly saw that your reply after posting mine. There’s a euphemism for everything but hopefully fewer people will have the need to use confirmed bachelor euphemistically and instead use it the way you intended here.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Personally I think it would be great if Frank Easterbrook decided to take senior status to spend more time with his wife in Alaska. I hear that court needs judges, so I’m sure they’d welcome him with open arms.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d happily pay for his one way airfare… Lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
Frank Easterbrook is another example of how conservatives played the long game on the courts given that he was put on the 7th Circuit under Reagan when he was just 35 back in 1985 and has been able to influence conservative policy since then.
I would love it if he would retire but he’s not going to so under a Democratic president and even with a Republican one, only if his health becomes too much of an issue.
He’s another person that won’t leave the courts IMO until Mother Nature does it for him.
As for James Ho, him going onto SCOTUS will only ensure it’s reputation continues to go further into the gutter.
Let’s hope that doesn’t come to pass.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Easterbrook was I think 37, not 35 (born 1948) but otherwise I agree.
Regarding James Ho, he will be 56 in 2029, so I think if Harris can win in November then Ho will likely be safely removed from consideration from a future SCOTUS seat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michael Luttig just endorsed Harris and says it will be his first time voting for a Democrat. Have any other retired Circuit Court judges ever made political endorsements?
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Ever” is very broad and can reach back to the founding era. Since back in the day there’s been judges and justices who ran for political office while still actively serving on the bench, I’d say that this isn’t the first endorsement from a retired one in 250 years.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yikes – Luttig’s former clerk list : Ted Cruz, John Eastman, Christopher Wray, Alex Azar, David Stars
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Keystone, he was one of the most prominent conservative jurists in the land and likely would have been on SCOTUS if not for his falling out with George W.
He also helped Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings.
I think he is one of the few to feel remorse for the monster he helped create via SCOTUS.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I remember reading when Michael Luttig’s father was killed (And mother left for dead by the car jackers but survived), the death penalty case went all the way to the US Supreme Court. I read a few of the justices had to recuse themselves because of how close they were to him.
LikeLike
William Webster, who’s more significant for his post-circuit career, endorsed Biden in 2020.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I read that George W. Bush considered Michael Luttig for the Supreme Court. This is major, even though Luttig has always been critical of Trump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A few others that came to mind:
Griffin Bell, Bush 2000, 2004
Abner Mikva, Bradley 2000, Obama 2008
Patricia Wald, Obama 2008
Michael Chertoff, Clinton 2016
I don’t remember if Bork or Starr issued endorsements, but they did repeatedly act as attack dogs.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Chertoff is impressive. Hillary cast the lone vote against Chertoff twice due to his prominent role in investigation Whitewater.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Luttig is extremely conservative… but the guy has more integrity in his toenail than justices like Alito and some of his clerks like Cruz and Eastman.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Saporito (Aug 13) and Willoughby (Aug 19) received their commissions for those interested
LikeLiked by 3 people
Was about to post this, we’re now down to just Neumann and starting on the 21st, Baggio for judges that can take the bench during the August break.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And Saporito sets a new mark for oldest judge appointed by Biden, passing Tia Johnson on the military court by nine months, Jeffery Hopkins by 19 months, and Margaret Guzman by 20 months. I guess he’s at least not a senior citizen yet? Biden’s thankfully seemed to have a firm rule of no Article III judges born before 1960. I would hope there wouldn’t be many 1960s births among Harris’s hypothetical appointments, but probably the best we could hope for is none pre-1965.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If the senate is R, the Harris White House will have to make a lot of compromises to get vacancies filled. Probably no one born pre 1960, but I wouldn’t rule those from 1961-1965 out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scary thing is I can see Republicans just doing an all out blockade, courts be darned if Harris wins but they have the Senate.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Prior to Warnock & Ossoff winning on January 5, 2021, it was rumored McConnell had already vowed how judges would go for that Congress. Apparently he would have only allowed Biden to replace Democrat appointees with Democrat nominees. Any Republican appointees would either have to be replaced by Republicans or the seat remain vacant.
LikeLike
Isnt McConnell stepping down this november as GOP leader in Senate? And wont this affect the judicial where his say so is concerned? I thought Thune or Cornyn were trying to fill the role…
LikeLiked by 1 person
IMHO, you’re unnecessary freaking out. Of course nominations would slow down from a Democrat senate but even Mitch McConnell let Obama have some district court nominations confirmed between 2014 and 2016 along with two circuit court nominees even though he could’ve left the seats vacant had he wanted to leave them for the next Republican president. No reason to think that it would be radically different in either direction in an Harris presidency unless there’s specific proof showing otherwise based on who the new majority leader would be. On that note none of the candidates who have been seriously bandied about are notably more radical than McConnell on judges (say a Hawley or Cruz). There would likely be a focus on more experienced and bipartisan nominees, which is not a bad thing, but it would likely be at the expense of career diversity. Deals would be made and had to confirm bipartisan nominees just as when congress has been split before. That being said, it is way too early to say what will actually happen in November.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There wouldn’t be a total blockade. After all there are vacancies that need to be filled. But there would have to be a lot of negotiating involved and there certainly wouldn’t be anyone exciting.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Also I will say that the exact makeup of the senate will matter too. The kind of judges that can get through a 49-51 senate are different than in a 45-55 senate.
LikeLiked by 2 people
While I agree somewhat, the destructively obstructionist wing of the senate GOP has expanded from (at least)
Sullivan, Cotton, Daines, Inhofe, Cruz, Lee, Johnson
to (at least)
Tuberville, Britt, Sullivan, Cotton, Hyde-Smith, Hawley, Schmitt, Daines, Vance, Mullin, Blackburn, Hagerty, Cruz, Lee, Johnson
They constitute a much greater share of the caucus today, and there’s a strong chance that the rookie party leader will be at least somewhat subservient/placating towards them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
While he may be radical on other issues Mullin did turn in his blip slip for a OK package so as far as judicial nominees go I wouldn’t place him in the same category as the rest of the names you listed. I agree with the rest of your list but even there that’s only around 1/3 of the overall caucus. The Thurmond rule would be in effect for sure but that would also have been the case if Trump was president under a Democratic senate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Part of Mullin’s cooperation was the judicial emergency on that court. If I were one of California’s senator, I would cooperate with a GOP administration on E.D. Cal. due to its dire need for judges whereas I might be willing to hold seats open on other courts in hopes to fill those seats with liberals.
I think that star0garnet’s list is pretty accurate but there’s always some level of subjectivity. For example, I could remove Mullin, Cruz, Lee, & Johnson from the list based on their cooperation in filling some seats they had blue slip power over. On the other hand, I could add Marshall, Rick Scott, Lummis, & Kennedy to the obstructionist list based solely by their vote to overturn the 2020 election (honestly, I think that vote alone warrants adding those senators to the obstructionist list)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think there is a distinct difference here though for several GOP senators when it comes to the judiciary in comparison to everything else. Senators such as Kennedy have voted for a handful of Biden’s nominees, but on the opposite side you have Sullivan who is more of an obstructionist on the judiciary than some other issues.
LikeLiked by 1 person
After Republicans took control of the Senate, Mitch McConnell only allowed one circuit court nominee to be confirmed along with 13 district court judges in Obama’s final two years in office.
It was the lowest number of judicial confirmations in a two year period since WWII and gave Trump a record number of judicial vacancies to fill, breaking the previous record led by W, who also benefitted from the same crap being done to Bill Clinton via Orrin Hatch.
So no, I think it’s a valid fear to think a Republican led senate would do the same thing to Harris, history has shown they will.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m counting 22 judges, including 2 appeals nominees, confirmed between 2015-2016. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama
LikeLiked by 1 person
I counted 2 appeals court nominees and 18 district court nominees.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think Frank has added the two lifetime appointments for the Court of International Trade in 2016, with them you get a number of 22.
There was also on confirmation on the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces during that period and some for the Superior Court of DC, but these are no federal judges, so 22 or 23 is correct.
Generally I don’t think that really nothing will happen, because it’s also not in the interest of the homestate senators, that their constituency has to wait for their day in court for years due to obstruction, but Harris was also not that cooperative as junior senator of California under Trump, and I’m sure that will be given as excuse for not working in good faith, if she will be elected.
But in the end, in this constellation, nobody here would be excited to see a sixty-years-old prosecutor be confirmed in bi-monthly frequency. Most people here would spend even more time to update their wishlists and looking forward to the next election.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Watching night 1 of the convention, I know you’ll wanna laugh but Durbin did give a speech (which was to be expected given he’s the #2 Senate Democrat in the leadership and the convention was being held in his home state). Nothing special about the speech, just a boilerplate attack on Trump and defense of Biden’s record. Was kind of hoping he would’ve made some mention about the amount of judges confirmed during his time as SJC chair. It was pre-primetime so you would’ve needed to see it on C-SPAN or another cable network. There was decent SJC representation tonight, Butler gave a speech about her prior experience with Harris and Coons gave the speech leading into the Biden family speeches (did see Klobuchar and Whitehouse on MSNBC to add to that).
I’m pretty sure Schumer does have a primetime slot sometime this week. While I’m sure the bulk of his speech will be about his legislative accomplishments as Majority Leader during the Biden presidency, and promoting Harris, I hope a part of his speech is about getting KBJ confirmed onto SCOTUS or the 200+ federal judges confirmed (which IMO was more impressive than Trump’s 200+ judges given Biden and Schumer inherited far fewer vacancies, the Democratic Senate majorities during the Biden presidency have been smaller than the Republican Senate majorities under Trump giving them little to no room for error on confirmation votes, Democrats more willing to cooperate with Trump on blue slips, and there’s been near-unanimous Republican opposition at a minimum on almost all of Biden’s judicial nominees). Someone needs to give the judiciary some love at this convention lol. Heck, Whitehouse is one of the better Senate orators (although there aren’t many IMO) and gives constant Senate floor speeches about the ethically challenged SCOTUS and Federalist Society judges, he could make a killer speech about the judiciary this week IMO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fun fact… I was texting @Ethan during the convention night one. Biden brought up the courts only once mentioning KBJ at the stroke of midnight exactly. I was joking when Durbin was speaking, it would be a great time for him to announce he was ditching blue slips…lol
Here’s some observations from night one;
Hillary Clinton gave a spectacular speech. I only heard one “Lock him up” chant & it was during her speech. She remained silent & revealed with glow on her face. It made me smile.
Senator Warnock showed why he was able to win about a half dozen elections in a span of 4 years in a red state. He gave a brilliant speech while also being the best dressed speaker of the night.
Coach Steve Kerr gave an inspirational speech highlighting why he couldn’t sit in the sidelines & neither should we.
Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett gave a great speech. The part of her speech when she talked about her first time meeting VP Harris was emotional & showed a side of the VP I wasn’t aware of. She is the future in Texas politics.
Congressman Raskin gave a good speech although there was one awkward extended pause. I assume there was a teleprompter issue.
AOC was greeted as a rock star. Unlike some in the past have said on this blog, I feel she could be a future US Senator once either Schumer or Gillibrand decide to leave.
Had President Biden had the same energy at the debate that he had last night, he would have been speaking Thursday night as he would have been the nominee. What a great send off he received. He went through his accomplishments, hammered Trump & praised VP Harris. I’ve seen it multiple times in my work life. When somebody announces they are leaving a job, they seem to be free the remaining time they are in the job. Sometimes it makes you wonder where was that person the entire time they were doing the job. I’ll end with 3 words… Thank you Joe
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dequan, I will go a step further and say I think AOC will one day be at the top of the ticket for President. It may be in 16 or 20 years, but it’s very obvious to me she has “the juice” and she is an incredible orator. Now that she seems to have the mainstream support of the party too I think the sky is the limit.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The previous post is from a politico newsletter from yesterday speaking about the senate and judicial confirmations for the rest of the year. I thought people on this site would be interested to see what they say
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought the section in last night’s DNC lineup where the 3 women )and one man) explained how they were unable to receive reproductive care due to Trump’s policies was particularly moving. It’s unfortunate that those women had to 1) go through that experience and 2) had to stand on a stage to reveal some of the most intimate and painful moments of their lives in order to help ensure that others won’t have to have the same experience. I do think that their stories are a better way of explaining why judges matter.
My other take away from last night was the huge focus on labor. It made me feel much better about the dem’s commitment to getting Campbell over the finish line.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In 2008 election, Obama won by about 7%..Democrats gained 8 seats in senate that year. If Harris could win by 5% or >, I think the chances of getting a 51-49 or 50-50 senate are very good. I know it’s long way from election day, but Trump is extremely unpopular (he barely got a bounce from an assassination attempt and the RNC) and if the Harris momentum continues, a 5 pt win is possible.. The August fundraising total will be interesting, since it’s the first full month that she is the nominee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unfortunately the senate map is so tough and congressional races align so closely with presidential races. To win Florida and/or Texas, Kamala would probably have to win by 6 or 8 to make it close.
That being said, victories in Montana and Ohio would may be enough of a win to keep the senate in D hands for the rest of the decade.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not to mention if Democrats took my advice. As soon as then President Harris hand comes off the Bible on January 20th, Democrats should return to the Capitol & do whatever it takes to make Washington DC a state. And follow that up with The Virgin Islands if possible.
I’m not so sold on Puerto Rico because I don’t think it’s as overwhelming their residents want to be a state but if they can make it happen I’m fine with that too. But under no circumstance should Democrats be given complete control again & we still have 50 states by the next time we have a Republican president.
LikeLike
TX is winnable with a 3-5% edge nationally. As long as Kamala is within 5 in TX, Allred has a realistic chance.
It wouldn’t shock me if TX is a tossup on election day. I agree with you on FL.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wouldn’t say “very good”, but they are much higher than what the doomers claim.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Completely forgot about this with the convention and whatnot this week but Bob Menendez is no longer a Senator as of today lol
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good bye & good riddance to the worst Democrat senator. At least Manchin has a reason for his behavior. I look forward to Andy Kim jointing Senator Booker after the election.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A couple important court rulings that recently occurred:
SCOTUS ruled 5-4 to keep a lower court injunction against Biden’s Title IX protections, including protections for LGBTQ+ students. One article argued that this was a quiet overturning of Bostock v. Clayton County. Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, & Jackson dissented.
The 9th circuit ruled 2-1 (Wardlaw and Gould in the majority, Bumatay dissenting) to block Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement for voting. This is only the beginning of the election law fights in the courts, which will likely get to SCOTUS.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sad to say Ryan but this is where RBG being replaced by Amy Barrett among other cases will have horrible consequences.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My opinion of night tonight DNC…
Michelle Obama – A+
Barack Obama – A+
Roll call vote – A+
Governor J. B. Pritzker – A
Other notes, I was initially against Harris & Walz not being at the convention. Boy was I wrong. Them packing 15,000 in the same arena as the RNC last month was genius. An absolute A+.
Senator Menendez officially resigning – A++
LikeLike
Schumer was the one who had to follow up the roll call vote. You could catch the speech on cable news but it didn’t go on during the broadcast networks. Largely talked about his time with Harris in the Senate and promoted all of his incumbents running for re-election and Senators running for open seats/against Republicans (Alsobrooks in MD, Blunt Rochester in DE, Slotkin in MI, Allred, DMP in FL, etc). Still nothing about judges and didn’t mention anything about his legislative accomplishments either, surprisingly.
Some kind of important news also happened last night. One of the important pieces of news that’d have long-term implications is that Alaska held its primary and Peltola had a pretty strong performance and should be in a position to hold her House seat. The second Sullivan or Murkowski announce their retirement Schumer better have Peltola on speed dial, she’d be far more valuable as a Senator (and she’d have the same constituency as she does with her House seat). If Murkowksi were to not run in 2028 (which is a possibility given how Republicans in the state hate her), I’d gain an enormous amount of respect for her if she endorsed Peltola for Senate that year lol (the two of them are on good terms and endorsed one other in their 2022 campaigns if I remember).
The other piece of good news is that the Montana abortion referendum will be on the ballot in November, which is probably the best piece of news Jon Tester could get.
A couple of Senators are speaking tonight before Bill Clinton and Walz, I’m most interested in Catherine Cortez-Masto’s seat. I might donate to her 2028 campaign if she throws somewhere in her speech how the pundits declared her political career dead in 2022, only to win and provide Senate seat #50 and control for Democrats (also completely changed the complexion of the George runoff which I think was to the benefit of Democrats). I was in Nebraska for work during the midterm week and the one race I was furiously checking my phone every hour for updates was her race (and Mark Kelly/Katie Hobbs to an extent). I’d think most of her speech will be how both she and Harris served as Attorney General for their states at the same time, both got elected to the Senate in the same year and further worked together there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I guess New Jersey’s new senator-designate, George Helmy, won’t start until the Senate is back in session next month. I’m curious to see if VP Harris will take time out of campaigning to swear him in. She doesn’t need to be the one to do so, of course, since all her Senate functions, besides her tie-breaking vote, can be given to someone else to perform.
I also find it curious that Gov. Murphy has already promised to appoint the winner of the seat in November to the seat as soon as the state certifies the results. Technically, this means that Murphy will, by his words, be forced to appoint a Republican to the seat if Kim is defeated. Obviously, this isn’t very likely (hasn’t happened since the 1970s). But I wonder why Murphy would publicly set that condition int he first place. This could have always been the plan without needing to say it out loud, thus forcing his hand. If such a catastrophe were to take place (again, not saying it’s likely), Dems would lose their outright majority, at least temporarily, depending on the other senate races.
Also, whatever the result, this means that Murphy will get to make 2 separate appointments to the same seat only a few months apart.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would expect Murphy to backtrack on that promise in the unlikely event Kim loses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Speaking of Andy Kim, he got added to tonight’s speakers list. Oprah also got added.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Judge Marco Hernandez of Oregon took senior status today, Amy Baggio will likely soon replace him.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Did Menendez officially resign yet? I assume his replacement can’t be sworn in until senate is back in session Sept 9th
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, multiple news sources reporting Bob Menendez officially resigned Tuesday, August 20th. Here’s an article from the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdx6l3p5lrro.amp
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Rick.
Yes, Menendez is thankfully gone from the Senate but his replacement won’t be sworn in until the Senate resumes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not seeing any new judicial nominations..hope that changes by the end of the day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We have until August 28th to not kiss a hearing. I doubt we will get a new batch much before then.
LikeLike
Here’s an article from Politico…
PEDAL TO THE JUDICIAL METAL
Senate Democrats only have three weeks left of session before the November election as they try to outpace former President Donald Trump’s judicial confirmations. Given their dubious chances at holding the chamber, a sense of urgency is starting to set in.
President Joe Biden headed into the August recess in a dead heat with Trump’s record in the first week of August in 2020 — 205 judicial confirmations apiece. But Democrats could struggle to close a gap in the final months, as they seek to deliver on promises to remake and diversify the federal judiciary and sense their time is running out due to their brutal 2024 map.
Part of the challenge for Biden and Democrats in hitting Trump’s mark of 234 confirmations is there are currently just 47 vacancies throughout the federal court system, and just one is an appeals court slot. But Trump was able to rack up three-dozen additional confirmations in the final months of his term with Democratic cooperation, a fact Democrats point to as reason that the GOP should help them to clear the decks this time around.
“You know, we gave [Trump] a gift at the end, the package deal in December [2020],” said Senate Judiciary Chair Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I hope the Republicans are considering the same option.”
Durbin said he’s been proud of the pace so far, given Democrats’ incredibly narrow Senate majority, and vowed to keep it up. “There’s a lot of pressure and we’ve responded to it, I think, in a remarkable way … We want to continue to until the end of the year.”
It’s about more than votes: Another factor impacting the number of picks that can be considered will be the use of so-called ‘blue slips,’ a Senate tradition that effectively gives home-state senators a veto over district court selections. States with large numbers of unfilled slots include Texas (5), California (5) and Missouri (4) — with the Show-Me State not yet having nominated a Biden judge.
Deeply blue California has already seen the confirmation of more than two-dozen Biden judges, but bipartisan cooperation has extended to conservative states like Texas (3), Florida (4), Ohio (4) and plenty more.
Overall, most lawmakers think the current blue-slip practices are working well — many credited Judiciary Committee ranking member Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) for easing the confirmation process.
“It is a little bit frustrating with these Senate procedural rules that turn a pretty simple, straightforward process into a time-consuming ordeal,” Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), another member of the Judiciary Committee, conceded. “I’d like to be able to have votes on all the qualified people that come before us. [But] I do appreciate that, by and large, Sen. Graham has been helpful in trying to move things along.”
Durbin was not inclined to change the status quo either: “We have a decent experience to justify blue slips.”
Overall, Biden judges have enjoyed a fairly smooth path to confirmation — albeit with a few notable exceptions. A New Hampshire nominee to an appeals court seat withdrew in May 2023 amid concerns with his defense of a school in a civil lawsuit over sexual assault, while the confirmation of Adeel Mangi — also up for an appeals court spot — appears moribund due to Democratic opposition.
The White House did not respond to request for comment.
But at least some more confirmations are on the horizon. One of Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s final acts before breaking the chamber of its summer break? Moving to end debate on two more federal judicial nominees.
“I’m interested in filling all of the judicial vacancies,” said Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), a member of the Judiciary Committee. “I’m not necessarily looking at ‘Oh, we have to beat Trump.’ That’s not my focus.”
— Anthony Adragna and Katherine Tully-McManus, with an assist from Ursula Perano
LikeLike
Here’s an article from Politico…
PEDAL TO THE JUDICIAL METAL
Senate Democrats only have three weeks left of session before the November election as they try to outpace former President Donald Trump’s judicial confirmations. Given their dubious chances at holding the chamber, a sense of urgency is starting to set in.
President Joe Biden headed into the August recess in a dead heat with Trump’s record in the first week of August in 2020 — 205 judicial confirmations apiece. But Democrats could struggle to close a gap in the final months, as they seek to deliver on promises to remake and diversify the federal judiciary and sense their time is running out due to their brutal 2024 map.
Part of the challenge for Biden and Democrats in hitting Trump’s mark of 234 confirmations is there are currently just 47 vacancies throughout the federal court system, and just one is an appeals court slot. But Trump was able to rack up three-dozen additional confirmations in the final months of his term with Democratic cooperation, a fact Democrats point to as reason that the GOP should help them to clear the decks this time around.
“You know, we gave [Trump] a gift at the end, the package deal in December [2020],” said Senate Judiciary Chair Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I hope the Republicans are considering the same option.”
Durbin said he’s been proud of the pace so far, given Democrats’ incredibly narrow Senate majority, and vowed to keep it up. “There’s a lot of pressure and we’ve responded to it, I think, in a remarkable way … We want to continue to until the end of the year.”
It’s about more than votes: Another factor impacting the number of picks that can be considered will be the use of so-called ‘blue slips,’ a Senate tradition that effectively gives home-state senators a veto over district court selections. States with large numbers of unfilled slots include Texas (5), California (5) and Missouri (4) — with the Show-Me State not yet having nominated a Biden judge.
Deeply blue California has already seen the confirmation of more than two-dozen Biden judges, but bipartisan cooperation has extended to conservative states like Texas (3), Florida (4), Ohio (4) and plenty more.
Overall, most lawmakers think the current blue-slip practices are working well — many credited Judiciary Committee ranking member Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) for easing the confirmation process.
“It is a little bit frustrating with these Senate procedural rules that turn a pretty simple, straightforward process into a time-consuming ordeal,” Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), another member of the Judiciary Committee, conceded. “I’d like to be able to have votes on all the qualified people that come before us. [But] I do appreciate that, by and large, Sen. Graham has been helpful in trying to move things along.”
Durbin was not inclined to change the status quo either: “We have a decent experience to justify blue slips.”
Overall, Biden judges have enjoyed a fairly smooth path to confirmation — albeit with a few notable exceptions. A New Hampshire nominee to an appeals court seat withdrew in May 2023 amid concerns with his defense of a school in a civil lawsuit over sexual assault, while the confirmation of Adeel Mangi — also up for an appeals court spot — appears moribund due to Democratic opposition.
The White House did not respond to request for comment.
But at least some more confirmations are on the horizon. One of Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s final acts before breaking the chamber of its summer break? Moving to end debate on two more federal judicial nominees.
“I’m interested in filling all of the judicial vacancies,” said Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), a member of the Judiciary Committee. “I’m not necessarily looking at ‘Oh, we have to beat Trump.’ That’s not my focus.”
— Anthony Adragna and Katherine Tully-McManus, with an assist from Ursula Perano
LikeLiked by 1 person
A poll today came out showing Cruz up just 47-45 in TX. Allred is striking distance in this seat. If the Dems start putting money there, there’s a real shot of getting this seat.
I’ll say again that I’m tired of the doomers who claim that Texas is unwinnable. They told us that the Senate was guaranteed to flip in 2022, predicting doom in 2024, and who argued the same crap regarding Georgia in 2020 (and now claims 2020 was a fluke).
LikeLiked by 2 people
I also said Democrats should go all in against both Cruz & Scott. They could win either of those races & it will be essential to do so with West Virginia virtually gone. I would even test the waters against Hawley & Blackburn, both of whom have solid opponents.
While I don’t think either incumbent will lose this heat, you have to start building a comeback at some point for states like Missouri & Tennessee so mine as well do it now. Dems should have plenty of money between now & Election Day so resources shouldn’t be an issue.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m fine with spending something against Scott and Hawley. We don’t have much of a chance in either state, but who knows?
But Cruz is another matter. This should be considered a top tier race. Allred has a ton of money himself, but the party should back him up as well. If Harris can close the gap even a little from 2020 (the poll had it Trump +5), Cruz is in real trouble.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the 2012 presidential cycle, Heitkamp held ND for the Dems (when she was tipped to lose as a foregone conclusion) and Donnelly flipped IN from the GOP. King and Murphy moved ME and CT, respectively, to the left as well.
TX and FL are giant and expensive states with incumbents who are more unfavorable than favorable, but toppling them will be challenging in an election year when Trump will likely win their states at the top of the ticket, and ticket splitters are needed. My bet is Florida will be closer (within 1 or 2 points) at the presidential level, and Scott is the better target. So much has been churning in that state for the last few years that I think DMP has a decent to good chance.
I think Dems should definitely play offense in MO and TN, and if the DNC won’t or can’t focus on them in the home stretch, then citizens should. I personally think, and have been going back and forth with Dequan in other threads here about it, that TN is more ripe with the conditions for an upset at the senate level. Of course it will go for Trump in the EC, but there are big neon signs pointing to massive turmoil just below the surface in that state. I think Marsha might be taking her victory for granted, and that will be required to eke out the narrowest of surprise wins for Gloria Johnson. I’m disappointed that the Tennessee Three got bumped from speaking at the convention due to time on Thursday, but hopefully they secured some kind of arrangement in return for campaign season. I’m not holding my breath, but if Heidi Heitkamp could do it, Gloria Johnson cannot be counted out yet. (I know the circumstances were different….) These are the heady days when everything looks possible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s hoping that Houston native Beyonce can help to motivate some Texas votes to help close that 2pt difference between Cruz and Allred.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am completely blown away by VP Harris speech tonight. A+, home run. She knocked it out of the park.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Absolutely A+.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s the FedSoc take on Biden’s impact as it pertains to the judiciary: https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/how-president-biden-is-impacting-the-judiciary-despite-a-changed-appointment-process
LikeLiked by 1 person
Finally, some judiciary news. Thanks for sharing. Thomas Jipping is a known conservative, so on this topic, he’s as “neutral” as the Federal Society is on everything.
For me, percentage of the total judiciary matters little, especially since quantity doesn’t equal quality. George Washington appointed 100% of the judiciary for a period, yet Biden’s 25% is probably more in terms of actual head count.
What matters more to me when assessing impact is the quality of judges appointed. Biden has had some very good appointments.
But of course, it’s the misfires that hurt so that’s the ones we dwell on. From the conservative/Republican perspective, Trump had more of an impact, especially with his circuit court appointments. He appointed fewer moderates/consensus judges who are younger and more ideological. In a word, among Trump’s circuit court picks, there are more Justin Walkers than there are Mark Bennetts. Whereas it’s the opposite for Biden/Dems. Even if Biden surpasses Trump’s numbers, his normie judicial impact won’t.
Frank, I know your position on this, but I live in the world as it is today, the actual reality. I wasn’t around back in the day when things were hunky dory. So given a choice between my hacks and their hacks, I am going to fight for my hacks every time, instead of throwing my hands up and pine for how things were done in the 1950s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I mostly agree with @Gavi here. I don’t agree with ” among Trump’s circuit court picks, there are more Justin Walkers than there are Mark Bennetts. Whereas it’s the opposite for Biden/Dems.” part of his statement but everything else yes.
Out of Biden’s 49 confirmed or pending circuit court nominees, I only count five that I gave a grade less than a B- to. I gave 13 of the 49 an A+. That’s pretty damn impressive.
But in addition to the things @Gavi mentioned, there is one more major factor that makes the overall sentiment of his statement true. Trump replaced numerous democrat appointees with his 54 circuit court judges. Of course that is mostly due to so many seats being left open by Mitch McConnell from Obama’s presidency. And some of those Democrat appointees were liberal lions. Biden has replaced some Republican appointees but if you take out the Rover-type’s, that’s truly what will leave Trump’s 54 ahead of Biden’s (Whatever the final number will be) in the end.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dequan, why are you counting Irma Ramirez 5 times?
But in all seriousness, I 100% agree with the cross-party/ideology replacement advantage that Trump had. That advantage was always going to be insurmountable in only 1 term. This is why VP Harris needs to win. That would go a long way in leveling the playing field.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haaaaaaaa
I just bust out laughing at work @Gavi… Lol
1000% agree though. A Harris term (And let’s be honest, a second term) will be needed to truly rebalance the courts overall.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Neumann and Baggio received their commissions yesterday 8/22
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would note that in a couple of Democratic appointed judges being replaced under Trump, several of them were Orrin Hatch specials like Frank Hull, Richard Talman and Julie Carnes, who would never have retired under Biden.
Other moderate judges like Chris Droney, Gerald Lynch, Marjorie Rendel were Democrats and thus them flipping was a big loss, as was the flip in the 9th Circuit of two seats there and of course RBG.
I think under Biden the most conservative seat we’ve flipped was Frank Kanne, and that was with a moderate/slightly conservative Democratic judge.
An upgrade but not a massive flip like we saw with some seats other Trump.
I do think if Harris wins and we keep the Senate, the chances for us to flip a few conservative seats will grow, as the remaining George Sr/Reagan judges aren’t getting any younger.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The biggest flip IMO was CJA replacing Flaum on the 7th. Judge Flaum was pretty conservative and I’m still surprised that he waited until the end of the Trump admin to leave.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Something I just realized…
It sounds like Harris is going to be doing a lot of debate prep. She’s been doing that at Howard. If that continues to be the case, it would be easy for her to be able to cast tie breakers.
Also, it sounds like they want Vance to spend a lot of his time in PA, which is unfortunate for Pennsylvanians and but also bc it’s possible that he could pop down to DC and make a surprise appearance at a vote.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I highly doubt Vance will be returning to vote at all during the 3 weeks session in September. I think it’s more likely he will reflect Warnock during the runoff & not return until after the election. Now the real question is if Schumer will be smart & tee up the non Mangi circuit court nominees along with the Oregon & Connecticut district court nominees in September. We need a repeat of September 2022 so Biden can finish did strong in the lame duck.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, bring her in for Campbell and Park. Would give her a chance to support nominees who are backed by unions and the police.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I really like CJA…Glad she’s there on the 7th…
LikeLiked by 1 person
And CJA was basically a 2 for 1 deal since her father retired from the bench not too long after she was confirmed. And we got a good young judge on the EDVA who possibly is posed to be elevated to the 4th one day in the future so really good deal all around.
LikeLike
I’m back, I see someone beat me to the punch on the newest commissions, so we’re all caught up for now I believe. Outside of any judges that get confirmed when we get back, Coggins is the next confirmed judge in line for a commission starting 9/17, and the only one for September. For next week, we’ll be awaiting any new nominees on the 28th.
I also read that article on the judicial nominees posted here for the September session. I was hoping maybe there’d be some insight on when the Senate would shift to working on the government funding, until then it can be all nominations.
Most of my energy this past week was on the Democratic convention, it’s frankly amazing how everything turned out given how miserable things were in July. The convention had a real chance to be a complete disaster, from the possibility of an open-floor nomination fight to getting completely overwhelmed by protestors, neither of which happened. I really did wish the courts got a shoutout someplace, but hard to complain about how the convention was run.
I have posted here on how I wish the Senate squeezed in an extra week somewhere to make up for the mid-July RNC eating up Senate time, from cutting the 4th of July break to a week to going an extra week into August, I honestly wouldn’t have minded coming back the day after Labor Day and being in that week, even if it meant missing a Monday.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@tsb1991
I too am hoping we get a new batch Wednesday. This has teh potential of being the last batch by Biden unless Republicans feel Harris is going to win so they sign off on some moderate mainstream district court nominees. Spot on in regard to your analyst about the convention.
I too wonder when they will work on the government funding. I just don’t see them working on nominations the entire 3 weeks in September so likely then. Although Vance is pretty much out all September so I wish they would at least spend two weeks on judges since he cancels out Manchin’s no vote.
LikeLike
Why would the GOP in red states sign off on anything even if they think Harris will win? They are 50/50 or better to take the Senate, so the attitude will be we’ll deal with those vacancies next year even if Harris wins.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With blue slips in play, there’s not much difference between a 51/49 Democrat majority versus a 51/49 Republican majority when it comes to district court seats in a state with at least one Republican. Even if you have a 99/1 Democrat majority, if the state you are talking about has the 1 Republican, then the Democrat president’s judicial nominees can’t get a SJC hearing from that state unless the Republican senator turns in their blue slip. So if Republicans senators feel Harris winning is inevitably, they mine as well agree to moderates with Biden so they cut six months or so off the time the courts in their states will be short staffed.
LikeLike
@Jamie,
I think Flaum assumed McConnell would have time to appoint his replacement.
Didn’t happen and we should be thankful for that.
@Dequan, I have to believe there will be nominees this week, especially for the 3rd Circuit seat.
No way is Biden going to let a chance to appoint another judge to his home state pass him by, especially since it will be a flip of a conservative Republican seat.
Jordan isn’t a fire breather like James Ho but he’s no Ilana Rovner either.
Hoping to see a nominee for the Northern District of NY as well.
Likely to stay in the Syracuse area so hopefully we’ll get a decent nominee.
LikeLiked by 2 people