Judge Anthony Brindisi – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York

While comparatively uncommon, former members of the House of Representatives have, on occasion, been nominated to be federal judges. Former New York Congressman Anthony Brindisi is the first former member of the House to be nominated to the federal bench since James Rogan in 2007, and, if confirmed, would be the first on the bench since Judge William Martini was confirmed in 2002.

Background

Born November 22, 1978, in Utica, Anthony Joseph Brindisi got his Bachelor of Arts from Siena College in 2000 and went on to earn his J.D. from Albany Law School in 2004. After law school, Brindisi joined his father’s firm, Brindisi, Murad & Brindisi Pearlman. He continued to work there until his election to the U.S. House in 2018.

After leaving the House in 2021, Brindisi rejoined the firm. In 2022, he was appointed to the New York State Court of Claims, where he serves.

Brindisi also served in the New York State Assembly between 2011 and 2019, and in the U.S. House of Representatives between 2019 and 2021.

History of the Seat

Brindisi has been nominated to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. This seat will be vacated when Judge David Hurd takes senior status. The Biden Administration previously appointed New York Assistant Attorney General Jorge Rodriguez to replace Hurd in 2022. However, Hurd took exception to the fact that Rodriguez was not based out of Utica and withdrew his intention to take senior status. In 2024, Hurd again indicated his willingness to take senior status upon confirmation of a successor.

Legal Experience

Between 2004 and 2018, and again from 2021 to 2022, Brindisi practiced law at his father’s firm in Utica. At the firm, Brindisi handled civil litigation, for example, representing the family of a girl struck by a motor vehicle in a suit against a municipality for failing to reduce speed limits or posting signs for children at play. See Dennis v. VanSteinburg, 2009 NY Slip Op (NY Appellate Div., 4th Dept. 2009). Brindisi’s work also encompassed appellate work, as well as trial level litigation. See, e.g., Scaparo v. Village of Ilion, 921 N.E.2d 590 (N.Y. App. 2009).

Jurisprudence

Brindisi has served as a judge on the New York State Court of Claims since Governor Kathy Hochul appointed him to the court in 2022. The New York Court of Claims is a specialized court that handles civil claims against the state and state agencies, where judges serve for nine year terms. Among the few opinions of Brindisi that are available for review, he granted a motion to dismiss claims arising from alleged sexual abuse suffered by the plaintiff in a correctional institution. See RS v. State of New York, 2024 Slip Op. 50859 (NY: Court of Claims 2024). In the opinion, Brindisi found that the claims were barred as untimely as they were served outside the one-year window that New York law permitted. See id. Brindisi noted that he was “sympathetic to claimant” but lacked the discretion under the law to waive the jurisdictional requirements of the law. See id.

Political Activity

Unlike most judicial nominees, Brindisi has an extensive political history, to include a list of public statements on most issues that is too long to detail here. A summary of Brindisi’s political history is below.

From 2011 to 2018, Brindisi served in the New York State Assembly, which is the lower house of the legislature. In this position, Brindisi generally earned a reputation as a moderate, For example, Brindisi described himself as a “strong supporter of the Second Amendment” and opposed the New York Securing Ammunitions and Firearms Act, criticizing the law for a lack of due process. See NY-22 Minute: Brindisi Questioned on Gun Policy By Luke Perry, Utica University Center of Public Affairs and Election Research, Mar. 9, 2018, https://www.ucpublicaffairs.com/home/2018/3/9/ny-22-minute-brindisi-questioned-on-gun-policy-by-luke-perry.

From 2019 to 2021, Brindisi served in the U.S. House. Notably, while in the House, Brindisi voted to impeach former President Donald Trump on both counts in 2019. See Mark Weiner, Rep. John Katko, Anthony Brindisi Split on Trump Impeachment Vote, Syracuse.com, Dec. 18, 2019, https://www.syracuse.com/news/2019/12/rep-john-katko-anthony-brindisi-split-on-trump-impeachment-vote.html. Brindisi subsequently lost his re-election in 2020 by a razor thin margin.

In 2021, Brindisi ran for a seat on the New York State Supreme Court, losing to Syracuse attorney Danielle Fogel, who was a childhood friend of Brindisi’s. See Douglass Dowty, Syracuse Lawyer Fogel Wins ‘Dream Job’ on State Supreme Court Against Ex-Congressman Brindisi, Syracuse.com, Nov. 2, 2021, https://www.syracuse.com/politics/2021/11/syracuse-lawyer-fogel-wins-dream-job-on-state-supreme-court-against-ex-congressman-brindisi.html.

Overall Assessment

The last two ex-Congressmen to be nominated for the federal bench had very different trajectories onto the bench. Martini was confirmed comfortably with no controversy, while Rogan’s nomination stalled due to the lack of support of his home state senator.

For his part, Brindisi’s path of the bench is likely to track in between the previous two. He is expected to get a hearing. However, such a hearing is likely to draw significant questioning based on his political stances. Given the rapidly closing window for judicial confirmations, it remains to be seen if Brindisi will be confirmed in time.

709 Comments

  1. Zack's avatar

    @Dequan.
    I get wanting a more liberal nominee but anyone who cares about the right of criminal defendants would have an issue with someone who gave conflicting answers on his role as well as others with the wiretapping of private conversations between defendants and their lawyers.
    As you said, the issue is Biden/Schumer didn’t insist on a district court nominee to go along with Federico or go with someone else but at the end of the day, the issues around Jabari Wamble’s nomination couldn’t be ignored, the mistake was dragging it out too long and not going with a nominee that would be more liberal on all issues.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Yea I definitely agree. I gave Frederico an A- so for Kansas that’s damn good. Not filling all existing district court seats for Kansas, Indiana & Texas will always be a throne in my side in exchange for Frederico, Kolar & Ramirez though. As you stated, that is the real issue here even more so than a few decisions they make that I disagree with (Although this one seems to be a bit more complicated so I wouldn’t necessarily say I disagree with him without reading a bit more into it).

      Liked by 1 person

  3. tsb1991's avatar

    Oddly enough, no nominations hearing was posted yesterday for next week. If they’re not planning on holding it Wednesday, they could still hold one next Thursday, since I believe the business meeting would be to hold over the nominees from the 7/31 hearing. I did check other Senate committee websites and have seen some stuff posted for next week (even found one committee hearing for next Wednesday at 10AM in the event the Senate would have a light day or even lighter attendance day due to the 9/11 anniversary).

    Liked by 2 people

    • dawsont825's avatar

      Well damn, that sucks…

      I had high hopes of eking out one last senate term for both red-state senators like Brown, Tester, and Manchin (prior to him announcing that he wasn’t running for re-election). Even though Manchin is a corrupt POS and a major pain-in-the-ass for legislation/filibuster reform/judicial nominees/etc., his seat gave Schumer the power to set the agenda for the Senate, and to keep committee gavels away from lunatics like Ron Johnson, Marsha Blackburn, Tom Cotton, etc.,

      A 50-50 senate with a Pres. Harris could continue to build on the diversification of the judiciary started by Pres. Biden. With a GOP senate (even 49-51 puts McConnell as leader, temporarily until he steps down as GOP leader) that all goes away. Nothing but former prosecutors, big law firm judges, AUSAs, and former congressional/WH legal counsel have a prayer of getting through the SJC or even a vote on the floor. Not to mention missing out on opportunities to flip GOP-held seats or even an untimely SCOTUS vacancy until the 2026 midterms (which normally goes poorly for the incumbent president and their party).

      I know this is a forum/blog to talk about judicial nominees and their backgrounds… but those aforementioned nominees need to be confirmed by U.S. Senators. So, allow me to make a shameless political rant here:

      That 2020 Mandela Barnes loss in Wisconsin stings right now (and no, I will not make this a referendum on progressivism) because he would’ve been the 51st vote to give cushion for Manchin’s usual fly-in-the-ointment f*ckery, and for any future Dem defections on key votes. But also, he would make it easier to say goodbye to Sen. Tester and still keep senate control to allow Pres. Harris to fill her cabinet, confirm various executive branch vacancies, and most importantly, confirm any district and circuit court vacancies (SCOTUS is already high priority). If Sherrod Brown wins reelection, this will likely be his last term, and you can count on a flip of his seat in 6 years (ala, Manchin). On the flip side, there a few GOP senators who are in swing states/blue states which are likely in play in 2026 (Susan Collins & Ron Johnson). If the Dems can flip those two seats, that would go a long way into either winning back the majority or making it a 52-48 senate.

      On the flip side, the Dems are going to have to defend a lot of light blue-state senate seats, while also defending perpetual tough seats. Both Arizona seats, Nevada seats, Both Ossoff and Warnock in GA (hopefully Brian Kemp has no interest in being a senator), either of the NH seats, etc.,

      With that said, the political winds can change in a second over the next 6 years. If you told me that Dems would win 2 senate seats in Georgia, and neither of them would be blue dog Dems nor Mary Landrieu types, I would’ve said you were huffing glue. By this time in 6 years, who knows if Dems will win a senate seat (or seats) in states like North Carolina, Wyoming, Alaska, etc.

      Personally, I would love to maintain control of the senate this year and make D.C and Puerto Rico states to maintain Dem control for longer, but it’s unlikely. Dems are afraid of their own shadows. They rarely use power unless it’s to quash the left.

      Liked by 1 person

      • shawnee68's avatar

        If Dems have 50 votes I can see DC statehood happening. The problem this time around is that Manchin and Cinema do not want to change the filibuster.

        I think is was 1989 or 1990 when Jesse Jackson and Eleanor Norton were ” shadow senators.”

        However, the senate refused to take up the issue and the bill died.

        I believe a bill has been passed in every house when Dems are in control but passage in the senate is highly unlikely.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Joe's avatar

    Regarding Tester, there’s not a whole lot that can be done that he isn’t already on top of. I give credit to him for fighting the good fight and also for being a reliable voter for Democrats the last 18 years. I don’t see that changing for the next four months and if he goes down I feel pretty confident he’ll be in the mood to stick it to Republicans on his way out.

    I certainly hope he can pull out a miracle once again, though.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. raylodato's avatar

    It just occurred to me (sorry if I’m late for the party) but it’s probably best if Schumer prioritizes nominees to swing state courts this month. I know Abelson and Vargas are first up, but the EDPA nominees and Kidd should probably be next, given the likelihood of R challenges to the election.

    Or am I wildly off base here and there are other nominees who should go next?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Joe's avatar

    Not a terrible idea, particularly if the seat is currently vacant. Charles Wilson is still there on the 11th, so not sure Kidd matters a ton.

    The ED PA seats could be relevant though, as could the ED Wi seat if Conway can somehow be fast tracked.

    Liked by 1 person

    • tsb1991's avatar

      Since Harris became the nominee, the party has been completely overflowing with cash, at this point some of that money needs to spill into TX/FL to try to boost Allred/DMP. I know the party committees tend to prioritize incumbents over challengers but those are the only two Republican seats not considered safe for Republicans this year and you can’t leave them uncontested. While I don’t expect Harris to win either state, the question could be if the Democratic Senate candidates run ahead or behind her, if they run ahead they have a chance if Harris keeps the margin close. If they overperform polling, if Trump bombs in the debate Tuesday, if the environment between now and November gets worse for Republicans it could make all the difference in Senate control.

      If the Senate winds up at 51R-49D and a Harris presidency, Senate control in 2026 could very well come down to the question of whether or not Susan Collins runs for re-election. While Tillis is also up in 2026 I don’t expect Democrats to win North Carolina during a Democratic president’s midterm. The most vulnerable Democratic Senators in 2026 would be Ossoff in Georgia and Peters in Michigan (New Hampshire and Virginia could get a little shaky if Shaheen or Warner retire IMO). People talk about Kemp challenging Ossoff in 2026 but I’m honestly not that scared of him, he said some mean things about Trump but he also has fingerprints on a 6-week abortion ban in Georgia and further loosening of the state’s gun laws.

      Is there any benefit to your party holding the House and not the Senate while having the presidency? You lose all nominations leverage, at best you chair all the House committees and shut down Republican investigations there, and Comer and Jordan aren’t chairing committees anymore. I think investigations are harder to do in the Senate, I remember Graham at an SJC meeting saying that the subpoenas issued to Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo were more or less toothless since they would never get 60 votes to have the subpoenas enforced.

      There’s still nothing posted on the SJC site for any kinds of hearings next week, not just nominations but even those afternoon subcommittee hearings. Last pro-forma session of the August break was held yesterday so we’re just a weekend away from the Senate returning.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Mike's avatar

      Senate Dems need to clear the deck so that the GOP senate has no leverage next year, no leverage only red seats to fill so that 1 for 1 still leaves a Harris WH with a net gain.

      That Wisconsin seat loss is unforgivable and the GOP operatives bragged about the fact that Barnes lost thanks to their efforts to dissuade black voters from turning out. Decided by 27k votes out of 2.6m.

      Another $1m fro the DNC and he might’ve pulled it off but they abandoned his campaign in the end bc of the fake polls showing him down 5%.

      Wild how many recent elections decided by tens of thousands of votes have had national ramifications.

      Dems in North Carolina also really dropped the ball, had a chance to take the un-gerrymandered state legislature, keep the liberal state supreme court and flip another seat against a MAGA candidate and nothing but Ls so their new conservative SC re-gerrymandered the district maps and gave the GOP 3 more house seat pickups this year that might cost Dems the house.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. tsb1991's avatar

    If we do have Harris and a Republican Senate, I’d imagine Graham would be the more preferable SJC chair than Grassley? I know Republicans term limit their committee chairs to three terms (I don’t think their time spent as Ranking Member counts towards that). Grassley has served two terms as SJC chair (the 114th and 115th Congress, from 2015-2019), while Graham has had one-ish term (116th Congress in 2019/2020, he was still SJC chair to start the 117th as a holdover until the 50-50 Senate re-organized). Democrats don’t term limit their committee chairs which is how you had Leahy as the top SJC Democrat I think from 1995 to 2017 lol.

    While obviously expectations on judicial confirmations under a Republican Senate would be subterranean, I feel like Graham as SJC chair would at least give some of Harris’ nominees a fair shake while Grassley would put up another 2015/2016 performance as chair, when Obama was president and very few nominees even got a hearing. The bigger concern with Graham as SJC chair IMO would be floor confirmation votes. And if any judges are confirmed under a Republican Senate, how many would have cloture invoked? I can’t picture Thune sending out cloture motions for a Democratic president’s nominations.

    Also, if you go by seniority on the SJC, after Graham and Grassley, Cornyn would probably be next in line for the SJC chair, after that the dam breaks and you get to Lee and Cruz, who’d probably advocate for abolishing the SJC under a Democratic president.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      In regard to no SJC hearing posted for next week, I too was expecting two September hearings. But that was mainly because I fully expected us to get a nominee for the 3rd in one of the last two batches. Since we didn’t, theoretically all of the district court nominees can just be bunched together into one hearing. As a matter of fact, it might be better that way. Give Kennedy, Cruz, Blackburn & company five minutes to grill 6 nominees instead of five minutes to grill 3 nominees, twice.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. Joe's avatar

    Graham would definitely be the preferable option of the two, without a doubt. He has voted for, if I remember correctly, about 50% of Biden’s nominees, which is good for 3rd highest in the entire GOP caucus.

    As far as Thune or whoever sending out cloture motions, I imagine all of these would be parts of package deals. So it’ll be 1/1 or 2/1 or whatever ratio they settle on with the White House. There will be a lot of nose holding, but the courts system can’t survive four years without any judges getting confirmed. I just wouldn’t get my hopes up for anyone too exciting.

    In Obama’s last two years, with a 54-46 R senate, there were still 2 appellate and 18 district judges confirmed. I would expect a pace about like that or maybe slightly better. To Harris’ advantage, there are vastly more red state vacancies and the senate will be more closely balanced

    Liked by 1 person

  15. pj91's avatar

    what do you guys think of this idea of reform in clerk hiring? It seems that there is kind of a talent disparity within the circuits. Like in 4CA you have Wilkinson and then pretty much no one else.

    Maybe an alternative way to do things would be to have people apply to clerk on the 4th circuit and not for a particular judge and the chief judge would select the top 50 (or however many clerks there would be) to be the clerks for that circuit. The judge would be forbidden to look at organization membership (ACS, FedSoc etc) and only at GPA/Rank etc or if they clerked for another judge previously.

    Then you would have the 50 clerks who would be selected for the fourth circuit and the judges would “draft” each of them.

    I would hope this would get rid of talent disparities within the circuits but it might not get rid of talent disparities between the circuits. Like even if this was implemented, the DC circuit would probably still be the most prestigious and the 8th Circuit would still likely be weak.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I don’t think it would be a good idea to not have a judge with lifetime tenure not be able to pick their own law clerks. I think the better thing is to make DC (And if possible The Virgin Islands) a state. That way a lot of these judges that don’t have diversity in their law clerks won’t even make it to the bench in the first place in the future.

      Like

    • Gavi's avatar

      I’m sorry but that’s a rather silly idea. There’s no professional relationship in chambers more important than that of a clerk and her judge.

      As if Dems aren’t unwarrantedly called socialists enough, now we want to mandate how clerks are hired and who gets hired by whom? Where would this logic end? Why stop at law clerks? Why not extend this reasoning to congressional aides? Or, just political aides across all elected offices throughout the country. Big city and big-name electeds probably attract all the best and most talented aides, leaving county mayors in North Dakota in the lurch. Let’s implement your proposed system to force ambitious aides to tough it out in the middle of nowhere and have subpar “talents” assisting the president.

      Simply put, outside of North Korea, the labor market should be a open marketplace. What you want to do is force a bright progressive to work for someone like James Ho who they might find morally reprehensible. Or force Judge Jane Kelly to hire a middling FedSoc chapter president of the Scalia Law school.

      And I don’t know how much of a “fix” your proposal is. Would this only apply to appeals court? Why not SCOTUS? District courts? First, I don’t think anything is broken. Second, all you do is ensure that an ideological chief judge hand picks the pool of clerks for all the judges on her court. And your last sentence undermines your whole argument. The DC circuit doesn’t attract the best for no reason.

      Not everything needs to have a heavy hand fixing it. At the end of the day only the judge makes the law not the clerk. I’d hope we can still expect good quality judging and justice from a chambers with clerks from 3rd tier law schools. Disparities may be disparate without being discriminative.

      Liked by 2 people

      • pj91's avatar

        well i’m saying is that on the DC Circuit Srinivasan would pick the 50 or so best law students applying for that circuit (remember he would be forbidden from asking about organization membership). But of those, the judges can pick whoever they want.

        So if you have 10 of those students being FedSoc, then Katsas, Rao, Walker etc can figure out between themselves who they pick. Then of the remaining non-fedsoc ones, they can figure out the most moderate of them to hire on.

        The idea is that it would happen at the supreme court too. Roberts would hire the 38 or so best people he could find. Obviously he would look at where they went to law school and who they clerked for and rank but that’s it. Then the nine justices could figure out who among those 38 to hire.

        I do wonder if this was implemented if all the top fedsoc students in the nation would only apply to the fifth so that they would be a much higher percentage of the clerks picked. Oldham, Ho, Duncan, Jones, Smith would all benefit at the expense of Katsas, Rao and a few others.

        Liked by 1 person

  16. tsb1991's avatar

    It sounds like Helmy will be sworn in at 5PM Monday, so shortly after he’ll cast his first vote to invoke cloture on Abelson. Harris will most likely swear him in but I’d keep her nearby on Tuesday in case she’s needed for Vargas (the closest swing states to DC would probably be what, Eastern PA, NC, and GA if she wanted to go campaign after?).

    In probably the weirdest news of the campaign, Dick Cheney of all people endorsed Harris. I mean, I understand and appreciate Liz Cheney’s support for Harris (and I don’t like to guilt-by-association with her on her last name), but can’t we like donate Dick Cheney’s vote someplace? Give it to Tester or something? I know some Democrats don’t like Liz Cheney as she did have a pretty conservative voting record in Congress but I did appreciate her January 6 work, I view her the same way as I do Murkowski in which she’s as good as you’re going to get for a Republican in a red state (and Cheney represented a state where the Democratic Party could fit inside a car).

    She also did surprisingly endorse Allred for Senate. It probably won’t move the needle but if you want to be superstitious, I believe every Democrat she endorsed/campaigned for in 2022 won, so she has a perfect record there (and a lot of these were in swing districts or in swing states). Her endorsement of Democrats were largely because they were running against hardcore election denier Republicans, and I think that’s her motivation for endorsing Allred (to give a middle finger to Cruz for his role in January 6). If Allred somehow pulls it off and it saves the Senate, I’d give her some role in a Harris presidency (ambassador?).

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      Liz Cheney is terrific. I honestly don’t care about her conservative voting record. Character & integrity matters much much more. She could have easily been a coward like so many others, turned her head & kept her mouth shut through all of this. She is doing the right thing & putting her country before Party.

      She is making John McCain proud. I would most certainly find a spot in a Harris administration for people like her & Adam Kingsinger.

      It feels good to know the senate will be back tomorrow, even if for only three weeks. The budget concerns me. I hope Schumer waits until the third week to start using floor time for it. Nothing like the prospect of delaying recess motivates senators to get things done. We should get a two week healthy dose of judges.

      And for God’s sake can we finally end using floor time for any position that a President Trump could replace if he wins. Enough is enough. For the love of God Schumer, besides the budget, judges judges judges ONLY until the lame duck. We need another September 2022-esse September & knock out the bulk of the circuit court nominees pending. I’m hoping after the three weeks the only ones left to be confirmed will be Mangi & Park.

      Liked by 1 person

  18. Joe's avatar

    There have been many periods in US history where there was no VP.

    After Kennedys assassination the VP position was left unfilled until Johnson was inaugurated in 1965. Several Senators (including Walter Mondale) were sworn in during that period by the President Pro Tem

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Yea, exactly. There is no way the sitting Vice President can be the only person allowed to swear in a new senator no more than they have to be the only person that can preside over the senate. I mean if that was the case & there was a tie senate, unexpected vacancy & the VP was of one Party & the new senator was of the other Party, are we saying the VP can just refuse to swear in the new senator, so his Party remains the majority in the senate? No way… Lol

      Like

  19. Mitch's avatar

    I noticed posts about U.S. Senate races a couple of days ago. Several Senate races are tightening. Ted Cruz of Texas and Rick Scott of Florida are losing ground. So are Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania.

    I thought that Casey would be doing better. The Casey name is a brand all its own. By contrast, I’m surprised that Jacky Rosen is dong so well, the economy in Nevada is terrible.

    In Montana, I think Tim Sheehy’s remarks causes him some damage, but it’s not a game changer. I wouldn’t be surprised if Jon Tester came out against a major judicial nominee soon.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jamie's avatar

      If there is a judge that is too supportive of gun control or immigration, that would be a good one for Tester to publicly oppose. Another could be Mangi, who already has other Dem opposition.

      But if Tester wanted to show his independence by opposing judges, he’d have done it already. Most likely Tester has concluded that such a show doesn’t really help him politically and he’s just not going to bother to oppose judges he has no real issues with.

      Liked by 2 people

  20. raylodato's avatar

    Schumer’s “Dear Colleague” letter is out. He mentions confirming judges at the top, but no promise on numbers or whether he’ll prioitize CCA nominees this month. He does say they need to get a CR before the 30th.

    He’s been Lucy with the football on judges all along, so I’m guessing we don’t get more than 5 before the election. Maybe one of them CCA.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Joe's avatar

    I think today is only cloture on Abelson. I expect he and Vargas to be confirmed tomorrow, though.

    I am hopeful that 2-3 district nominees and an appellate nominee (Lipez?) will follow. But we will have to wait and see.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Gavi's avatar

    I see folks in here are still counting on the VP’s tiebreaker on judges. Between the debate tomorrow, 9/11 the next day, and just the general hard-charging campaigning now that the euphoria has largely worn off (forcing all but the most wide-eyed optimists to see that this race is and will always be close), I don’t see Harris going to DC many, if any, times to break ties in the next 3 weeks. I don’t think that’s unreasonable, and I see why that’s so hard to accept.

    Like a said a couple weeks ago Patty Murray can swear in the new senator today.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Joe's avatar

    “VP with most broken ties in history confirms another radical judge!”

    I’m not saying it’s correct. In fact I fervently disagree. And most people would not even care. But why bother handing the Fox News crowd another talking point? Let them thrash around like they have been instead and make fun of her laugh or other racist/misogynistic dog whistles.

    Save the tough votes for December and focus on the easy ones for now.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jamie's avatar

      If not that, Fox News will come up with a different headline attacking Harris. And after Dobbs, Harris has a much stronger hand to play on this. If she’s around in Washington, casting a tiebreaking vote won’t hurt her.

      I also *strongly* disagree on not bringing up any tough votes. There are two, Karla Campbell and Ryan Park, that should be brought up before the election. They represent key constituencies of the Democratic coalition, unions and Asians. And Park is strongly supported by police organizations. These two nominees could be helpful to spur some of the coalition leaders to get out the vote in states like Michigan, Ohio, and North Carolina.

      Now it’s unlikely she is needed, because JD Vance is probably going to be largely unavailable as well. So a vote that would have been 50-50 is now 50-49.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jamie's avatar

        It’s not just about undecided voters (although I disagree on that as well). It’s also about turnout and enthusiasm. It gives union campaigners another accomplishment as a talking point to their members. Many Asian-Americans tend to be happy or proud of seeing successful people in their community. Confirming Park and advertising it will help especially in NC.

        After Kamala’s DNC speech, several people I spoke or texted with unprompted brought up her attacks on SCOTUS as something they liked. (These are people who wouldn’t be able to name more than one or at two Justices.) You keep repeating this myth that Democrats don’t care about SCOTUS or the courts without any real evidence. That might have been true in the past, but after Dobbs and the immunity decisions, but I’m really skeptical that it is the case now.

        You are entitled to express your opinion. But people here are free to disagree with you without arrogant dismissive stuff like “Full stop.”

        Liked by 2 people

  27. Dequan's avatar

    Patty Murphy just swore in George Helmy. Senator Booker walked him down the aisle & stood by his side. The chamber gave him a round of applause & then he signed some paperwork with the clerk. The clerk then brought the paperwork over to Senator Murray.

    Like

  29. tsb1991's avatar

    Helmy sworn in (Murray, the president pro tempore, swore him in and not Harris). Cloture then filed on Lanthier and Provinzino, which should setup the four Wednesday votes for them.. Hopefully a cloture motion or two is sent out tomorrow for Thursday.

    Liked by 1 person

      • tsb1991's avatar

        I think after Lanthier and Provinzino the only other nominee pending a vote that wasn’t a party-line SJC vote is Costello. Otherwise no additional nominees are expected to be voted out until next Thursday, 9/19 at the earliest, so if any judges are voted on next week they’d have to be party-line votes at that point, unless they’d want to spend pre-lame duck time on the pending four Tax Court nominees or the local DC judges and DC Appeals Court judges that were also voted out before the August break.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Thomas's avatar

        I have not expected that, with the general lack of time and important legislation, we have to take what we get. At least Lanthier is a judicial emergency and half of the active judges are gone in the moment, that is an important point. And yes, McConnell have prioritized judges, but he had a comfortable majority Schumer doesn’t. I hope they are planning different scenarios to get things done, but you have counted Manchin within the 51 Democrats.

        Liked by 1 person

  31. Joe's avatar

    Only two new cloture motions today does make me fear that Thursday will be the beginning of budget negotiations. When they come back Monday and only send cloture for Wednesday votes that usually is their MO. Would love to be wrong and they set up 1-2 more nominees.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. tsb1991's avatar

    Schumer wrapped up. Abelson and Vargas should be confirmed tomorrow, barring any attendance issues for the latter. Outside chance based on the wrap-up that they might vote on the presidential immunity bill Thursday, which I hope to god it gets the morning slot and the afternoon slot goes tot a nomination (considering Provinzino and Lanthier should both be confirmed Wednesday, leaving Thursday completely blank).

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Mike's avatar

    I’ll take 4 new Judges in 3 days any week but in a typical sign of poor planning with cloture filings, the Vargas confirmation is at 2:15 meaning by 3:30pm they’re basically done.

    If they had filed Lanthier on Aug. 1st with the other two, her cloture vote could have been at 3:30 and she’d be confirmed first thing on Wednesday morning and opening up space for a 5th nominee.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Mike's avatar

    Former senator and now ACS President Russ Feingold has a press release out on the groups website.

    This bit caught my eye.

    “Through the end of August of his fourth year, Trump had 203 confirmed judges. Biden is currently at 205. While this is encouraging, the daunting task is closing these final four months of 2024 strong. By the end of his term, Trump had 234 Article III judges confirmed. This means the Mitch McConnell-led Senate confirmed 34 judges in the back quarter of 2024. In fact by the end of September 10 of the fourth year, Trump and McConnell were at 208 confirmations. This means barring a surprising Tuesday, September 10, Biden and the Schumer will essentially start the September work prior trailing their predecessors.

    McConnell and company were able to do this by heavily prioritizing judicial confirmations, seemingly at all times. In September 2020, there were 15 confirmations and there were another 14 confirmations in the lame duck period after the 2020 election. Not to mention that in October they were able to cram through a Supreme Court confirmation in the middle of a general election. In short, McConnell and the Senate often prioritized judicial confirmations over everything, in part because of the painfully obvious importance each of these lifetime seats holds.”

    Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        How much bipartisanship was McConnell, Cruz & Trump were they looking for when they packed the SCOTUS, NDTX, 3rd circuit & so many other courts? I think bipartisan deals are good if we come out with good nominees I would give a B+ or A- to instead of shoving an A or A+ nominee down their throat. Doris Pryor on the 7th Circuit is a great example of that. There were better choices but she’s good enough to make a deal worth it.

        It’s not worth it however if we get nominees like Irma Ramirez. I would almost rather the seat remain vacant if I wasn’t so sure about the senate elections this November.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I think @Gavi answered this a while back. Basically of a nominee is voted to the floor with a majority of the SJC, Schumer has to wait 24 hours before sending their cloture motion (Absent unanimous consent). Since most SJC votes happen on Thursday & the senate isn’t in session on Friday or weekends, the next day is usually Monday.

        If a nominee had a tie vote in the SJC, Schumer could actually call them up the same day. I remember we discussed this for the KBJ SCOTUS vote. Republicans actually hurt themselves by making her vote a tie in the SJC. Had Graham or any Republican voted for her, Schumer would have had to wait an extra day.

        Like

    • Joe's avatar

      I am one of the strongest proponents of bipartisanship on this board, but we know the answer. It’s because most GOP senators are not working in good faith.

      A lot of the “controversial” picks are really very highly qualified and would add good perspectives to their appropriate circuit courts. There’s no real reason for Republicans to be so against Park or Mangi but we know they are. I hope Schumer finds the votes this session.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Humanfault's avatar

        The Mangi “controversy” really still irks me. Everything I’ve read about the guy prior to his nomination showed that he was a well-respected, successful, and not particularly political lawyer. He represented those seeking religious freedom and those seeking to build a place of worship which Republicans are usually always up in arms in favor about. He was an immigrant who grew up watching American lawyer shows and wanted to be both a lawyer and American from a young age. He went to Oxford and then immigrated to America to fulfill his childhood dream.

        There was nothing controversial about any of the individuals he represented or the cases he argued. No prior statements or actions that could even be considered controversial a-la Jennifer Sung or Dale Ho. And yet when his confirmation hearing happened they asked him questions like “What were your thoughts on 9/11?” and “Do you support the October 7th attacks on Israel?”. Just brazenly racist comments. I am very loathe to actually claim that the reason why Republican senators vote against or make a fuss about Biden’s judicial nominees is because of their race. Almost every time it’s because the nominee is viewed of as “too liberal” or whatever. This was the one time while watching a judicial nominee’s hearing that I was genuinely astounded about the sheer audacity of the questions asked of Mangi. I mean, why would you ever ask a *judicial* nominee questions about foreign policy? And even in the scenario in which you would, why would you ask his position on Israel or Hamas when he is neither Israeli or Palestinian? Especially when there was an actual Israeli-American Jew named Nicole Berner who was sitting right next to Mangi in the exact same hearing but she wasn’t asked about it at all?

        All these ridiculous claims that he was pro-Hamas or Anti-American because of statements made by people 4 times removed from him. The fact that he somehow remained incredibly humble and calm during his hearing despite all of that just goes to show that he has the temperament and integrity to be a good federal judge and it’s a shame that whether or not he’ll actually be confirmed is still up in the air.

        Liked by 1 person

  38. IrvineOnlooker's avatar

    Hoping the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a October recess nominations hearing (like they did in 2022) for the 3rd Circuit nominee, and the 2(3) remaining California seats. That would allow those nominees to get out of committee the week of November before Thanksgiving instead of second week of December.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Gavi's avatar

      If I remember correctly, that October 2022 hearing was regularly scheduled because the Senate was supposed to be in session. Then Schumer canceled the session for the month. So I don’t count that as a recess hearing.

      I do want Durbin to schedule a true recess hearing like Republicans did. But he’s not done so and won’t. Just the sad reality of these uber establishment types.

      Liked by 1 person

  39. tsb1991's avatar

    Abelson confirmed. Romney, who was a no on cloture yesterday, voted yes. Vargas votes are up next. Schumer giving a speech in support of Vargas, I nearly had a heart attack when I saw him since it’s almost never good news if he comes out before a scheduled vote on a party-line nominee (since he comes out to withdraw the cloture motion).

    Liked by 1 person

    • tsb1991's avatar

      She also got Murkowski at the end. Kudos to whoever here that said they were surprised her SJC vote was a party-line vote, since she’s on track to be easily confirmed.

      Senate has nothing scheduled after the Vargas confirmation vote. They should have the votes to confirm that State Dept nominee whose cloture was invoked and is awaiting confirmation, I’d hate if Thursday is to confirm her and then a failed vote on the immunity vote.

      Liked by 2 people

      • keystone's avatar

        It was always super weird that she was a party line out of committee. If I remember correctly, she didn’t really get many questions during her hearing and the only followup questions she got were about the fact that she was on a SDNY LGBT group (I think she’s an ally) and some questions about an affirmative action case at West Point that she wasn’t actually involved with aside from the fact that someone at SDNY asked her a question at some point. She was also nominated by Senator Gillibrand. I’ve noticed that Collins and Murkowski seem to have very good relationships with most of the women senators that have been there for a while (i.e. the New Hampshire senators).

        Looking over the remaining party line noms ready for votes, there are ~ 3 that I could see them maybe be open to (although I’m much less confident of them)

        • Pennell (EDWA)- Nominated by two long standing women senators. During the hearing, I remember the senators complaining about what accounted to a small amount of cases being over turned. Once they saw they wouldn’t get traction, they then complained that Pennell and her husband had donated quite a bit of money to Planned Parenthood.
        • Henry (EDPA)- The main reason she’s a party line is bc she stumbled over one of Prof Kennedy’s questions. There were also some questions about her time early on in her career at the Feminist Majority Foundation.
        • Murphy (MA) – They didn’t really have complaints about his cases. They mainly had complaints about the SEO content on his firm website and generally with the idea of what a public defender does.

        They’ll prob end up being party line votes in the end, but if I had to guess at where Collins and Murkowski could be persuaded, it would be with these three imo.

        Liked by 1 person

  42. Rick's avatar

    Back to the earlier conversation about “controversial nominees”, I think the question is are nominees really more controversial or is the senate just too badly polarized and every nominee of the party opposite is deemed a far out kook.

    If you go back to Carter, Reagan, George HW Bush, Clinton, almost all their lower court nominees were confirmed UC or voice vote. Very rarely were there floor votes for lower court nominees.

    Sure there are some truly controversial nominees, but I think a lot of the so called controversial nominees is just the product of an extremely divided senate.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I swear whenever I pick up my phone & see a new comment from @Ben I get excited. Today is no different. I was beginning o give up hope for September but cloture on Kevin Ritz is great news.

      I was hoping he would be first. I’m sorry but I just don’t have as much faith in a Republican appointed judge not rescinding after an election Trump and/or senate Republicans win so I wanted Ritz confirmed before the recess. Great job.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Well actually the reasoning doesn’t match. I want Ritz confirmed first because the judge he is replacing is a Republican appointee. So if Trump or senate Republicans win, she could change her mind & change her retirement date to after January 20th.

        Kidd is replacing a Democrat appointee so I don’t have that fear at all. But trust me, I want them all confirmed. Just Ritz first.

        Like

      • Thomas's avatar

        Isn’t it a little obsessive not think every Republican appointed judge might change his mind, you supposed that Glenn Suddabby might do the same because he also might not be satisfied with the planned successor, and now Julia Gibbons, who knows for a long time, that her own former clerk should replace her, and now she suddenly should not like it and stay?

        I think the idea, that they want spending more time outside the courthouse, is not that far-fetched, especially, and also a matter of age. Suddabby or Gibbons have some good years before them, David Hurd has other priorities to work less, like trying to keep the courthouse in Utica open.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Actually quite the opposite. I wasn’t worried at all about Glenn Suddabby rescinding because he gave a hard date to step down. I’m worried about Gibbons because her senior status is based on the confirmation of her successor, AKA she can change her mind right up until Ritz is confirmed. Suddabby can’t change his mind so I could care less what he thinks about his successor.

        Like

  45. tsb1991's avatar

    Who’s ready to see Blackburn throw a fit at 1:45PM Thursday? Also, I remember Coons saying he was a no until he consulted with the White House about how the nominee was vetted, hopefully that’s smoothed over.

    Also, Schumer passed an updated organizing resolution since Helmy is now sworn in, I believe he will just get all of Menendez’s committee assignments.

    Liked by 1 person

  47. Mike's avatar

    The executive meeting has been cancelled.

    Also looks like they could have confirmed a 5 district judge on Thursday if they’d had the votes.

    I can’t believe Manchin is single handedly gumming up the confirmations of maybe dozens of judicial nominees.

    Is JD Vance not campaigning?!

    Liked by 1 person

      • tsb1991's avatar

        Good point, Whitehouse is also up for re-election this year so I’m sure he’s back home to celebrate in some form his uncontested primary. Weird how a few New England states have pretty late congressional primaries, all the other states have theirs in the spring and summer, while NH, RI, and MA have theirs after Labor Day (actually went and voted in the MA primaries last week, although most incumbents were uncontested and the precinct was a ghost town).

        Could also explain why two easier nominees were teed up for tomorrow, since Senators could be absent for 9/11 memorial services, as lilee mentioned.

        In local judiciary news, I got jury duty in December, in a state court in Taunton, MA. One of my mom’s friends a while back did get federal jury duty and went up to the MA District Court in Boston. Would federal jury duty service only happen before a magistrate judge or could you get one in front of a federal district judge? Would be pretty wild to get one in front of a judge that you saw their confirmation hearing and vote lol.

        Liked by 1 person

  49. Zack's avatar

    I too want to see Ritz confirmed ASAP.
    Yes, Gibbons isn’t a far right flame thrower but she’s no Ilana Rovner either.
    This will be a flip, albeit with a moderate Democrat but still a flip on a conservative court and we all want that.

    Liked by 1 person

  50. tsb1991's avatar

    Schumer wrapped up. I’d think the reason for the lighter schedule today is for the debate tonight? Senate also has a late start tomorrow, the cloture vote on Lanthier won’t be until 2:15PM, either that’s debate hangover or I’m sure there will be an event in or around the Capitol for 9/11. Lanthier will be confirmed later in the afternoon along with cloture on Provinzino, so Thursday’s votes will likely be to confirm Provinzino and cloture on Ritz.

    Could also explain the lack of a nomination hearing tomorrow, or as suggested here, all six will just be combined into one September hearing.

    Also, in today’s edition of Holy Irony Batman, apparently McConnell said this at some point today:

    “Noting it’s a bit ironic coming from him, McConnell questions use of Senate floor time on district court judges. “We can’t stop doing everything just because it’s a presidential election this year.”

    Pretty funny considering McConnell would keep the Senate in until 11:59AM on January 3 (which is I believe the very end of the Congress) to get every nomination cleared if possible.

    Considering that the House doesn’t seem united in a plan on a CR, just keep cranking nominations out until the House passes something acceptable, if the government shuts down and the Senate spends some time in early October waiting for the House to act, just use that time to go after nominations.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment