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. tsb1991's avatar

    Saw a story on Axios today, not sure if linking it will cause this post to need approval, but it was where things stand for judicial confirmations. Some of the interesting things that stuck out:

    -Judicial nominations are one of Schumer’s priorities for the next three weeks, along with avoiding a government shutdown.

    -A spokesperson for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told Axios that Durbin will “continue holding nominations hearings and markups through the end of the Congress.”

    The last one is interesting, realistically, there’s only one hearing in November where nominees could get voted out and confirmed. Would he hold hearings in December for any additional nominees, even if Trump wins or if Harris wins with a Republican Senate? I know in December 2020 Graham held a hearing for Trump’s First Circuit nominee but mentioned he wouldn’t hold a committee vote, and the hearing was also if Biden wanted to renominate him (which became a moot point after the Georgia runoffs, otherwise that’s probably a compromise pick Biden would have had to swallow?).

    Liked by 1 person

  2. keystone's avatar

    So, the GOP seems to be steering into some blatantly false, offensive, super racist, xenophobic, and just plain weird conspiracy theories about Haitians. I can only imagine the bizarre speech that Mitch McConnell would have delivered today had the WH nominated Markenzy Lapointe for that 11th Circuit seat.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Dequan's avatar

    I saw on the senate page that Mitch McConnell spoke about judicial nominations this morning. I just went back to watch it to see if he gave a third name of recommendation to President Biden on who he should nominate to circuit court vacancies. He didn’t this time but he did name check multiple pending nominees…

    He started with non judicial nominees Julie Su & Rachel Rollins. He then pivoted to pending judicial nominees & why he opposed them.

    Adeel Mangi – Anti semitism.

    Sparkle Sooknanan – Defrauding Puerto Ricans.

    Embry Kidd – Lying to the SJC about sex offenders he let out of jail.

    Sarah Netburn – She was so bad, she couldn’t even make it out of committee.

    He then said several nominees wouldn’t have even made it inside of the hearing room itself if it wasn’t for nepotism. Those three nominees were Kevin Ritz, Karla Campbell & Julia Lipez.

    Liked by 1 person

    • keystone's avatar

      Shocked that he skipped Park.

      Whoever decided to focus on nepotism as the reason to be against those three should be fired. It’s such a dumb and non consequential argument.

      I don’t think Mitch has ever called out Ali in these little tantrums. I don’t think they have any idea what to do with him. This makes me bullish on his chances.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I was surprised he skipped Ryan Park too. I guess his speech writer only focused on nominees that have had votes in the SJC already. It was my first time hearing the Embry Kidd lied in his hearing attack line. Anybody know what that’s all about? Obviously I know whatever it is, it isn’t true. I’m just curious what he was talking about.

        Like

  8. tsb1991's avatar

    Cloture was invoked on Lanthier, Democrats had full attendance on the vote for the first time since probably early May? Rounds was also absent again, so we may have full Democratic attendance and two Republican absences at a minimum tomorrow for the Ritz vote.

    Also, two nominees confirmed on a voice vote earlier.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Zack's avatar

    I wish we were able to confirm some of the harder nominees this week but I get why we’re not doing it today.
    In this case, the opposition headlines would write themselves, Harris skips 9/11 ceremonies to confirm far left judges is NOT something you want to try and deal with.
    Ritz being set up for cloture is good enough for me for the week.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mike's avatar

      Not just that but it’s possible that some of these senators (not sure about Vance) are absent because they know the nominee will be confirmed anyway.

      I’d sure like to test this theory by having important votes during important rallys Vance does including the prep week for the VP debate.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Mike's avatar

    I know this won’t happen because Chucks let me down too many times but but can you imagine if they spent all of next week confirming judges. What a dream!

    Monday a circuit judge confirmation then another 6 maybe 7 district confirmations through the rest of the week while the House GOP fumbles their way through a CR that their own party can’t get the votes for.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      There aren’t many non judicial nomination spending that aren’t positions a presdinet Trump could replace if elected. I think the two National Labor Relations Board nominees, the Occupational Safety, the e Director,
      Office of Financial Research nominee & Health Review Commission nominee, the Sentencing Commission nominees, the Postal Regulatory Commission nominees & the Federal Labor Relations Authority nominee are the only ones remaining.

      I think the bigger question is even if we get all judges until week 3, which ones will they be. Schumer could take the easy route with the Tax Court or local DC judges. The only district court nominees I see possibly getting more than 1 GOP vote could be Brian Murphy, Catherine Henry & Mary Kay Costello. Of course, I hope he knocks out Lipez & Kidd at the very least after Ritz next week. Mangi, Campbell & Park can all wait until after the election unless Schumer knows for sure another GOP senator in addition to Vance will be out next week or week 3.

      Liked by 1 person

      • tsb1991's avatar

        I’d hold off the Tax Court/local DC judges until the lame duck. I know two of the Tax Court nominees were unanimous Finance Committee votes, maybe in the lame duck you can get some expedition on these nominees with either voice votes or just avoid cloture. Maybe the same with local DC judges, since the blanket hold Vance has on nominations should be lifted after the election.

        Liked by 3 people

  11. tsb1991's avatar

    Whitehouse wrapped up. Provinzino will be confirmed tomorrow and the cloture vote for Ritz is scheduled. Democrats had full attendance on all three votes today, so nice to see they at least stuck around for the late afternoon.

    Looking into next week, the circumstances leading up to this would suck but there may be shaky Republican attendance due to Francine making landfall in Louisiana/Mississippi, maybe a combination of the state’s Senators miss some votes next week? We should get cloture motions sometime tomorrow. With floor time as short as it is they should really hold two Monday votes, one to confirm Ritz and then cloture on another nominee. You could even make it a party-line nominee since whatever attendance is there to confirm Ritz could confirm a party-line district nominee. Pretty decent chance though that Costello gets teed up tomorrow if the past is any indication.

    There shouldn’t be anything happening next week that would stop Tuesday and Wednesday being full days (the debate yesterday and 9/11 today), so I hope we get full steam on nominations.

    For tomorrow, I’m sure Blackburn will blow up before the Ritz vote on how the blue slip policy on appeals court only applies to blue state seats. For attendance tomorrow, if you assume full Democratic attendance and Rounds/Vance out, that makes the attendance 51D-47R. Manchin voting no would be fine, if Sinema votes no then the VP would need to be around.

    I also haven’t seen a nominations hearing posted next week either, unless all six nominees have a hearing on the 25th?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I selfishly was hoping the next SJC hearing would be on September 25th because I will be in South America next week for my birthday & didn’t want to miss my first Biden nominations hearing the day of. Looks like Durbin is going to do just that. As long as all six are in the same hearing then really no harm done as far as them getting delayed for their confirmation. There will be plenty of nominees still pending the first week back after the election.

      As for Blackburn, Ritz will be the teaser. Campbell will be the real nominee she loses it over. She might need mouth to mouth resuscitation if Taylor Swift would endorse her opponent in the senate race… Haaaaa

      Like

  12. star0garnet's avatar

    How many of the nominees pending on the floor are we thinking will get zero GOP votes?

    For circuit judges, Mangi almost certainly won’t get GOP support and Lipez almost certainly will, while I’d be pleasantly but not overly surprised by at least a Collins vote for Ritz, Kidd, and/or Campbell. 32/43 circuit confirmations have come with at least one GOP vote and none have required Harris. While at least Mangi would break the streak, all 12 of Biden’s male circuit appointees have received a GOP vote.

    After Provinzino is confirmed, that will leave a dozen district nominees pending on the floor. I assume Kasubhai, Russell, and Sooknanan won’t get a GOP vote, Ali probably won’t, and then I’m unsure on Murphy, Pennell, Hwang, Court, Valenzuela, Henry, Costello, and Wise. 148/162 district confirmations have come with at least one GOP vote. Only three have required Harris, but two of those came with three Dem absences vs. one GOP absence.

    Race-wise:
    Circuit:
    12/14 white confirmations had GOP support
    20/29 POC ”
    District:
    64/65 white ” (including Provinzino)
    85/98 POC ”
    So that speaks well to the chances for Ritz, Campbell, Lipez, Russell, Murphy, Pennell, Henry, Costello, and Wise (plus 8/10 viable district nominees pending in committee).

    I realize being close to the election/in the lame duck may alter things, as does Manchin’s bipartisanship stupidity, but we’ve yet to really see that impact votes, thanks in part to Schumer’s prioritization of easy votes. Only 2/4 circuit appointees have received GOP votes this year, lower than average, but Berner going without was expected, and only Maldonado seemed a victim of timing. 33/36 district confirmations this year have come with GOP support, but Schumer’s scheduling makes it impossible to draw conclusions from that.

    Liked by 1 person

    • keystone's avatar
      • Costello had bipartisan support out of committee, so she’s an easy confirmation.
      • Wise will 100% be party line bc she has a controversial background and had a very contentious hearing. She’ll be a lame duck vote to avoid putting Senators in tricky situations ahead of election.
      • I think Valenzuela got some heat during her hearing bc she’s done a lot of immigration work. She will also prob be a lame duck nom
      • Campbell will be party line. Keep in mind a lot of us thought Berner might get a Collins vote bc of her work with PP, but afterwards we realized that Bernier’s labor work was prob a bridge too far for Collins. Campbell’s labor work isn’t gonna win over Collins.

      Liked by 1 person

      • star0garnet's avatar

        How strong is the correlation between committee vote and floor vote? While 25 circuit and district judges have been confirmed without GOP support, another 19 have been confirmed without floor support from GOP members of the judiciary committee. We’ve seen Collins and Murkowski team up 16 times, Collins go solo twice, plus Pan’s circuit confirmation got Collins, Murkowski, Portman, and Rounds. (The counterpart in strangeness being Nardacci, who got Graham, Kennedy, Rounds, and Tillis, but not Collins or Murkowski.)

        Liked by 1 person

  13. Mike's avatar

    I hate to say it but I’m starting to doubt they’ll be able to confirm all the nominees they have much less any new ones unless Chuck holds a few 2 am sessions.

    2 district judges a day and a full day for circuit nominees just isn’t enough time.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I think we can confidently take Netburn, Kanter, Shaw-Wilder & Jackson off the list. Then factor in the possibility of voice votes or expedited time agreements for any or all of a combination of Conway plus the Tax Court & Superior Court of DC nominees. That leaves six circuit court nominees (Not including Ritz & including the nominee for the 3rd-Delaware) plus 21 district court nominees (Not including Provinsino nor the additional nominees in the final batch along with the 3rd nominee).

      I think it will heavily come down to the election results. If Harris wins but Republicans take the senate, I think you will see a strong push to confirm all of the pending nominees. There is enough time if you don’t count confirming Harris cabinet but of course if she wins & Republicans win the senate, Schumer will certainly take some time to confirm them. So in other words, come on Montana, re-elect Tester… Lol

      Liked by 1 person

  15. tsb1991's avatar

    Thinking of the debate last night, one of the underrated consequences of Doug Jones winning that special election (coupled with the Franken resignation) was that it gave Harris a seat on the SJC. In addition to the Senate going from 52R-48D to 51R-49D, Democrats gained a seat on the SJC, with the SJC going from 11R-9D to 11R-10D (looking back this appears to be the only committee where Democrats gained a seat, every other committee remained a 2-seat majority for Republicans). Following Franken’s resignation and Jones being sworn in, Booker and Harris joined the SJC (one to replace Franken, the other for the new seat). I think Harris needed both to happen since Booker likely gets first dibs with seniority. Harris’ questioning during SJC hearings (I think Intelligence too, but Judiciary is definitely her bread and butter) was why she was my preferred nominee in 2020 lol. Jones winning also held off some of Trump’s worst nominees getting confirmed, since the Senate after his election was functionally 50R-49D with McCain’s prolonged absence for his health. At 50R-49D, Susan Collins was effectively the most powerful Senator in that Congress.

    I do wish Rounds a speedy recovery. Not so much on judges but he has voted for a decent share of Biden’s nominees, and as we saw this past year was someone you could reason with on blue slips. If he’s going to miss all of next week just line the week up with party-line votes. As I’ve mentioned, there is precedent for Schumer doing this with Tim Scott’s presidential campaign. You could probably get what, 6-7 district judges confirmed next week and then finish with another appeals court nominee? That’s why I really would stress two Monday votes, it’d be more efficient to end the day invoking cloture Monday-Wednesday, and it’d allow you to get a 7th district judge confirmed next week.

    Monday: Confirm Ritz, cloture on district judge 1
    Tuesday: Confirm #1 and cloture on #2 (morning votes), confirm #2 and cloture on #3 (afternoon votes), confirm #3 and cloture on #4 (evening votes)
    Wednesday: Confirm #4 and cloture on #5 (morning votes), confirm #5 and cloture on #6 (afternoon votes), confirm #6 and cloture on #7 (evening votes)
    Thursday: Confirm #7, cloture on another appeals court nominee (Campbell would probably be the hardest to confirm between her, Kidd, and Lipez IMO, so I’d go with Campbell).

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I too wish Senator Rounds a speedy recovery. In the meantime, the senate’s work must go on. I am hopefully we can get Lipez, Kidd & Campbell confirmed before the recess.

      I still don’t know if I would tee up Mangi before the election however. I just don’t want Tester to have to vote on him. It’s a no win situation. If he votes no, that all but guarantees the vote fails & you have to wait for the lame duck anyway. If he votes yes, the campaign ads will write themselves. I just feel Mangi can be confirmed in the lame duck after no Nevada senator has an election for 4 years, Tester can vote yes & maybe even get offer Manchin a cabinet secretary position if Harris wins (I mean for God’s sake, Vilsak can’t be Agriculture for life can he?) to get him to drop the dumbest rule I think I’ve ever heard from a senator in my lifetime… Haaaa

      Liked by 2 people

  18. raylodato's avatar

    Gonzales was considered “soft” on abortion–he had written an opinion on SCTX critical of (I think) Priscilla Owen on this. The Right killed his chances.

    Don’t know how Alito got chosen over Luttig, but it’s clear that Cheney was behind Alito and killed Miers’s chances.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      I too had Michael Luttig as my number one pick for the SCOTUS under GW Bush along with any of the woman on the 5th from Texas for the second vacancy. Ultimately a combination of things in addition to what was mentioned above probably is why he wasn’t picked.

      First, perhaps the administration knew he was interested in leaving the judiciary for a bigger payday before we the public found out. Another reason could be they didn’t want the circumstances surrounding the killing of his father to come up in his hearing. The death penalty case went to the Supreme Court & three Justices had to recuse from the case & his father’s killer was ultimately put to death. Maybe they just didn’t want that much baggage in the hearing. I think he would have been a phenomenal Justice despite me probably disagreeing with many of his decisions. I said that even before his recent comments.

      Like

  19. Jamie's avatar

    Judge Luttig is *very* conservative, on many/most cases he’d be just as conservative as Alito and Thomas. The difference is that Luttig is honest, he is not a partisan hack, and he’ll go where he thinks the law takes him. He’s not going to put his thumb on the scale and make up new theories to ensure that the conservative side wins (like Alito always does) when the law doesn’t support it. But something like Dobbs, Luttig would be a solid vote for the right.

    My sense is that Barrett is slowly going in this direction. She’s increasingly dissenting in cases where the right is just making up the legal reasoning.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. Mike's avatar

    Schumer filed cloture on Mary Kathleen Costello…

    ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!

    The Senate GOP will be down at least 1 vote next week and he puts one of the few nominees who got a bipartisan vote in the Judiciary committee into the pipeline.

    I swear EVERY TIME the universe hands Dems a layup they’re just like…nah, we’ll give the opposing them the ball, they seem lonely.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Ryan Park is the liberal equivalent to Miguel Estrada in 2001. Putting him on a circuit court instantly skyrockets him to the top of any SCOTUS short list. He, like Estrada would be a historic first. Both were well qualified. Hopefully Tillis is over stating his two Democrats he has commitments to vote no from or perhaps somebody can teach Schumer math between now & the end of the year so he knows when you have two Republicans out, you don’t tee up nominees who were vote out of the SJC 13-7.

        Like

    • Mike's avatar

      If Tester or Brown are going to lose their elections because they voted to confirm party line judicial nominee, then they’ve already lost.

      Deciding not to note take this short term advantage while Rounds/Vance are out to confirm even normal, young white, christian nominees won’t help senators who have voted to confirm 207 Biden judges.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Jamie's avatar

        There are some judges who may have a record that could hurt Brown or Tester in a red state. Running ads against them on being “soft on crime” could cause some voters who are splitting tickets to vote straight GOP.

        But some of these judges are party line solely because the GOP senators want to obstructionist (Ritz, Kidd, Park, maybe Campbell), and those judges should be brought up and confirmed now.

        Liked by 3 people

  22. Mike's avatar

    Chuck and senate Dems are in a position to actually hurt Trumps chances (or maybe help it) but forcing Vance to pick between campaigning or sitting in Congress voting no on judges.

    Since Trump only cares about himself, I have no doubt he’ll tell Vance to skip the entire Sept session and stay on the road campaigning and yet, so far Dems have not taken advantage of this at all.

    Unlike McConnell, Chuck does not have that killer political instinct.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. tsb1991's avatar

    On the Ritz vote, Manchin is a yes, despite having no Republican support, so that’s mildly surprising to see. Sinema did vote no. Rosen was the only Democrat not in attendance on the Provinzino vote. Coons also voted yes so he must’ve had the talks with the White House about Ritz’s vetting process.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      WOW… The biggest news of the day is Manchin voting yes despite every Republican voting no on Ritz. I was joking yesterday when I commented about Tom Viksak can’t be Agricultural Secretary forever so maybe Manchin will play nice but now not so sure it was a joke. This is great news if he is ending the dumbest rule I’ve ever heard uttered out of a senators mouth in my lifetime. Even if just slightly.

      For those asking what else will the senate do in Tuesday besides Costello, here is a copy/paste from the senate press gallery page…

      ”1:07 p.m. Majority Leader Schumer filed cloture on the nomination of Mary Costello to be a District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
      He then spoke on access to IVF and announced the Senate will vote on a bill on that topic next week.”

      Like

    • Joe's avatar

      Mike, I’m not sure there’s much need for panic at this point. Once Costello is confirmed there will, be 31 nominees awaiting floor votes. When you remove the four we know are unlikely to proceed, it’s really just 27.

      If a few more can be knocked out before the senate adjourns at the end of the month, then the senate is in very good shape to get them all confirmed in the lame duck period.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        I think the panic is a Harris win combined with a Republican senate win. Then Schumer would have to use the lame duck to confirm Harris cabinet secretary’s since we can’t trust a GOOP senate to confirm them. That would cut into the time they have to confirm judges in the lame duck.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Mike's avatar

        I’m running the math and looking at the calendar and unless they can some GOP senators to agree (unlikely) to another all night voting session like in Dec 2022 it’s basically impossible for them to confirm all the current nominees (even taking the 4 out) with the time left and the budget/military budgets among other things that still need to be done.

        Senate dems lost MONTHS with long absences earlier this year and last and this lackadaisical pace is in my opinion a sign dangerous happy go lucky attitude that everything will be ok.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Here’s my guess on who Harris would want to replace;

        State – Replace

        Treasury – Replace

        Defense – Replace

        Attorney General – Replace

        Interior – She will probably keep Haaland

        Agriculture – Replace

        Labor – Replace “Currently an acting Secretary”

        Health & Human Services – She might keep Becerra unless he decides to run for office in California

        Housing & Urban Development – Replace “Currently an acting Secretary”

        Transportaion – Replace if she nominates Buttigieg for another Secretary position, which I expect. If not, then not replace.

        Energy – She might keep Granholm

        Education – She may keep Cardona

        Veterans Affairs – She may keep McDonough

        Homeland Security – Replace

        Like

  25. Joe's avatar

    If I were Schumer I’d definitely try to line up Lipez before the end of September too. Those circuit court nominees takes up significantly more time than District ones. Any of them that can be removed from the queue would help tremendously.

    Liked by 1 person

    • lilee2122's avatar

      I’m thinking it may be a smart move to get gop senators on record on the IVF bill.. a few left over nominees would pass a gop senate if harris wins and renominates them…I’m thinking get karla campbell now… Ryan park confirm also now if they get him thru the SJC in time for floor vote…. in fact get all the CCA before Dec 31 ….

      Liked by 2 people

  26. Dequan's avatar

    Somebody changed their vote on cloture for Ritz. The webcast count was showing 49-42. When Butler read the count, she said 50-42 which I thought was a mistake. Then the screen count quickly changed to 50-42 as well. I wonder if it was either Sinema or one of Murkowski or Collins (The latte two would explain Manchin’s vote better).

    Like

  27. keystone's avatar

    Let’s not get too excited about the Manchin vote just yet. There have been a handful of times when a Senator makes a surprising vote and then they reverse it at the end bc it was an error.

    Re. the IVF vote, this is kind of a smart move. In the past hour, several people have talked about trying to protect people like Tester from having to take votes that might hurt them in an election. This is a vote that would not only help Tester, but it would but several Republicans in tricky situations. In the past month, I’ve seen both JD Vance and Rick Scott claim that the Republicans have always supported IVF and they’d lied and said that they’ve never voted against it. Vance will obviously miss the vote, but I think a no vote would look pretty bad for Rick Scott and Ted Cruz.

    Also, in her endorsement, Taylor Swift called out LGBTQ rights and IVF. The items for Tuesday would include confirming a LGBT judge (there is bound to be news items afterwards about the record number of LGBT judges appointed) and a bill aimed at protecting IVF. Let’s throw a bit of red meat at the future base.

    Liked by 3 people

  28. Zack's avatar

    Did I miss something or is Kevin Ritz, one of the people we wanted to be confirmed being brought up now?
    Also, we know the Republican senators who will be gone next week.
    Other then when Ritz gets confirmed, who’s to say we’re going to have perfect Democratic attendance next week?
    If some Democratic senators are going to be out campaigning, there is no point in bringing up the party line vote nominees right now.*
    *Yes I get the panic but if you can get any nominee confirmed right now, do it, even if it’s not ones we really really want.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Zack

      Kevin Ritz is most certainly priority number one. He’s a circuit court nominee replacing a Republican appointee who leaves the bench upon confirmation of her successor. The problem is Mary Costello isn’t priority number two. She isn’t even in the top 15 of priority. Not with both Vance & Rounds out.

      Like

  31. star0garnet's avatar

    I hadn’t realized this, but Julia Smith Gibbons is the second-longest serving active Article III judge, having joined the bench a month after Ricardo Hinojosa. With a Ritz confirmation now looking likely, Pauline Newman is set to replace her at #2.

    We’ve seen the departures of Young, Smith, Feldman, Kanne, Norgle, Hughes, Rovner, and hopefully soon Gibbons from the active bench under Biden, which should leave 13 Reagan appointees active. While the answer strongly depends on the winner in November, I wonder who will be the last of the bunch:

    Ricardo Hinojosa (SD TX, 1983), 74
    Pauline Newman (Fed, 1984), 97
    Terrence Boyle (ED NC, 1984), 78
    Harvie Wilkinson (4th, 1984), 79
    Frank Easterbrook (7th, 1985), 76
    Edith Jones (5th, 1985), 75
    Stephen Wilson (CD CA, 1985), 83
    Henry Wingate (SD MS, 1985), 77
    Alan Johnson (D WY, 1985), 85
    Karen Henderson (D SC, 1986; DC, 1990), 80
    JP Stadtmueller (ED WI, 1987), 82
    Jerry Smith (5th, 1987), 77
    Paul Niemeyer (D MD, 1988; 4th 1990), 83

    I’m sure some of them would only let Harris pry their seats from their cold, dead hands, but hopefully a few would decide they want a retirement a la Smith and Gibbons.

    Crazy to think that if Hinojosa kept at it till he was Newman’s age, he’d serve to 2047 and have been on the bench for 64 years. (A Jefferson judge hit 56 years active service, serving to 91; a Wilson-FDR judge hit 61 years active+senior status, serving to 104.)

    Liked by 2 people

  32. Rick's avatar

    So what is with all the Sinema NO votes recently. I doubt this is some true disagreement with the nominee. This is probably some sort of payback because she’s didn’t have the support to get another term. Her NO votes are nothing but sour grapes, bitterness, and revenge.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Even if they stayed Monday to vote for cloture & confirmation on Costello, there’s only one non judicial nominee pending that could be voted on Tuesday. Any cloture motions sent Monday wouldn’t ripen until Wednesday. Which is another reason why ONLY the Costello cloture motion today was so disappointing.

      Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        As the Biden administration comes to a close , I am hopeful that some of the folks on here will admit that they were WRONG about his approach to judges.

        For almost 4 years , I have heard mostly bitching and moaning about it taking too long for judges to be picked and confirmed. Or, that they are too old!

        We are at a point now where there are only a few vacancies left that are in blue states. All’s that’s left are in red states.

        I think Schumer has done a good job scheduling votes for a diverse caucus. There are Dems that we all know who come from red states and must tread lightly.

        The fact that process takes long is the nature of the Senate and it’s rules. Were there not any pushback these judges could all have done a long time ago.

        It’s not over yet but on par Biden and Senate Democrats have done a good job.

        Liked by 1 person

  34. Zack's avatar

    @Star0garnet,
    Sans the Grim Reaper having a say, there is no chance any of the Circuit Judges you listed will allow Harris to appoint their replacements if they can help it.
    As for the district court nominees, not sure about the others but Terrence Boyle is very right wing (why he was filbustered several times under W) and he won’t take senior status if Harris wins either.
    As to Sinema, if she’s voting no like Manchin is now on nominees, that will make it a lot harder for party line nominees, which is why we may not be seeing some of the names we want to see after Ritz.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Jamie's avatar

    I will say this again. Confirming Campbell and Park are two nominees that will help on the campaign trail. Get those two up for a vote before the election and make it a part of the campaign to union and Asian voters.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. keystone's avatar

    It’s interesting that Manchin said he thought the opposition to Ritz was unfair. The GOP has been clinging to this attack that Ritz’ nomination stems from nepotism. Manchin has also faced attacks about giving favorable treatment to his daughter. I wonder if that played into his dislike of the attack.

    The GOP has also lazily lumped Lipez and Campbell in this nepotism bucket. We know Lipez will most likely get a Manchin vote bc Collins. Campbell will prob be a no since Manchin isn’t really a labor rights guy, and he prob doesn’t like that Campbell donated $ to a candidate who said critical things about GOP Senators.

    Manchin’s new rationale does me wonder how he’ll vote on Park. Park’s attacks were mainly due to Tillis saying he wasn’t consulted and that weird campaign video they played ahead oh Park’s hearing reeked of political partisanship. A lot of people on here were calling for Durbin’s head when that video got played. Wouldn’t it be funny if that was actually the thing that helped get Park confirmed. Park also has that long list of endorsements, not just from police but also from NC GOP politicians. The GOP has criticized Park for being so closely connected to Gov. Cooper. I wonder if Cooper and Manchin have any sort of relationship.

    Lastly, regarding the whole nepotism thing, I still can’t understand why Manchin was against Carte Goodwin as a King replacement.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I’m not so sure it was Manchin was against Carte Goodwin more than it was he was for J. Jeaneen Legato. Apparently she’s a close family friend. Perhaps Manchin knew this was his last crack at getting somebody on the federal bench & didn’t know judge King would rescind his senior status.

      As for Ryan Park, I would assume if Senator Tillis is telling the truth about having two Democrats committed to voting no, Manchin has to be one of the two. I am pleased he voted for Ritz despite his dumb pledge but I’m not so sure he would go back on his word to another fellow senator. The man that just endorsed Larry Hogan for senate doesn’t seem like he would do that.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Usually when somebody writes things like “I’m not so sure”, “Apparently”, “I would assume” & “Doesn’t seem like” they probably are giving their opinion. If they were cc’d on an email they would probably use different terms such as “I know for sure”, “I can confirm” or “Definitely”… Lol

        Like

      • Joe's avatar

        With Park it’s hard to see. Sinema and Tillis are close, so I wouldn’t be shocked if she was one of the senators Tillis went and cried to. Perhaps the other was Coons who agreed to hear him out on the process (like he did with Ritz). Or it could be one of the Nevada senators. Who knows? I guess when he gets voted of committee (next week?) we’ll have a better understanding.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Tillis would have to be lying then. I explicitly remember him saying something to the effect of “I already have two Democrats that committed to voting no on Park” in one of the SJC meetings or hearings. He didn’t leave any wiggle room by saying something like I’m sure two Democrats will vote no, or I can probably talk two Democrats into voting no.

        I by no means am saying it’s impossible Tillis is lying. I’m just saying if he is telling the truth, then there is no wiggle room in his statement. That would mean Park would need one of those two Democrats to change their minds, a Republican senator to vote yes or Schumer to be smart & schedule the vote when a Republican is absent. I think the third scenario is the least likely since Schumer is teeing up nominees who was voted out of the SJC with a 13-7 vote knowing two Republican senators will be out next week, so I’ll lean on the first two scenarios.

        Like

      • Jamie's avatar

        He may not be outright lying… It’s just that the supposed commitments may not be as strong as Tillis assumed that it was. When two people “agree” on something, sometimes they come away with different conclusions.
        For example, Manchin may have promised to not vote for any nominee that didn’t have a GOP vote, but now it’s clear that it wasn’t that ironclad.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jamie's avatar

      ” Campbell will prob be a no since Manchin isn’t really a labor rights guy, and he prob doesn’t like that Campbell donated $ to a candidate who said critical things about GOP Senators.”

      The former isn’t really true, Manchin endorsed the PRO Act, which several other Democratic senators have not. The latter is a much bigger problem for Manchin.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Frank's avatar

      My argument is that the judiciary was designed to be immune from public opinion, and changing the size of the court would have drastic consequences which would result in the destruction of the judiciary. Work to win elections to change the composition of SCOTUS, not force changes which would make the founders squirm.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jamie's avatar

        That’s your personal view, and you’re entitled to it. But it’s not the view of the Democratic electorate (which deeply dislikes SCOTUS), and increasingly not the view of the Democratic leadership. Joe Biden is Mr. Institutionalist, if he’s moving in a different direction, the rest of the party is moving much more so.

        And as I said previously, I noticed a strong shift after the immunity decision. Dobbs was pretty disliked on the left, but that was within the reasonable limits. But the immunity decision is basically an abuse of power and entrance into partisan politics, and after that there is zero incentive for Democrats to defend SCOTUS.

        Liked by 2 people

  44. dawsont825's avatar

    I know that I shouldn’t be poll watching because polls can mislead and sow doubt in the electorate, but with Tester favored to be ousted, what is the likely number of judges that a Pres. Harris can get confirmed with a GOP senate??

    If Tester and Brown win and the senate is 50-50 with VP Walz to break ties, then I think Schumer, Durbin, and Pres. Harris can keep on chugging along with judges nominated by Biden but ran out of time to confirm. I’m sure Schumer will use the first 3-4 months of Harris’ presidency to confirm her cabinet and other executive branch nominees, while sprinkling in low-hanging fruit blue-state district court nominees.

    I think under a GOP senate, Harris can still get her cabinet confirmed (for the most part, cabinet secretaries from incoming administrations are confirmed with wide margins. I think it’s mostly deferring to the president and allowing them to pick who runs each department; within reason…) I don’t think Julie Su will be confirmed (or even renominated) so she’ll have to find someone else. Even though the GOP have broken numerous precedents and norms, I don’t think they want to start the process of playing hardball with the incoming president’s cabinet. Cause that will bite them in the a$$ whenever there is a GOP president.

    To answer my earlier question, I think with a 49-51 GOP senate, I think Harris will get to replace blue-state district court nominees and will only get a few circuit court nominees from blue states. She’ll more than likely have to find consensus nominees for red-state or even split senate delegations. So, she may have to lean on moderate district court judges for elevation to avoid leaving unfilled circuit court judgeships (Julie Carnes, barf).

    If I had to give a number, it would have to be… 60 over two years with a GOP majority, and 115 over two years with a Dem majority. 5th and 8th circuits looking prime for upheaval over the next 4 years.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. dawsont825's avatar

    As much as I would love to oust that hack Ted Cruz from office, it just isn’t likely that a Democrat can win a senate seat in Texas…. *yet*. If Beto came within 2% in a massive blue wave year, that just tells me that a Dem win at the presidential year in Texas is at least 12 years away, and that a realistic shot at a senate seat there is probably 6+ years.

    If Allred wins, I’ll do cartwheels. But I think Cruz ekes it out or wins by 3-4%. Texas is what North Carolina will become, a white whale for Democrats.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jamie's avatar

      I’ll be blunt. There’s a better chance of us knocking off Ted Cruz than holding the Montana seat. Both are on the table, but Cruz is really weak and Texas is in striking distance. We just need fewer doomers and cowards regarding the Texas seat.

      If Cruz wins by less 2-3% on E-day, and we lose the Senate because of it, I’ll blame all the people who didn’t take this race seriously.

      Liked by 1 person

  47. Frank's avatar

    As many of you here know, my bar for impeachment is extremely high (i. e. I disagreed with the partisan Trump and Mayorkas impeachments) but this possible impeachment is one I can very likely get behind: The Judicial Conference has proposed to Congress that Joshua Kindred be impeached to prevent him from holding any future judiciary post after resigning earlier this month due to allegations of sexual assault of his clerks and lying to investigators. The evidence here is pretty evident that he should never have any post in the judiciary again, although it is a long shot that the House takes this up unfortunately. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/disgraced-ex-alaska-judges-potential-impeachment-moves-to-house

    Liked by 1 person

  48. CJ's avatar

    I know this is a big matter, but I was personally wondering this. If the Supreme Court had the same composition it had from 2010 to 2016 (5 Conservatives: Scalia, Kennedy (swing vote), Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. 4 Liberals: Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan), how do you guys thing the SCOTUS would’ve ruled in the Trump immunity case (especially how would Kennedy rule)?

    Liked by 1 person

    • tsb1991's avatar

      That’s tough, I think ultimately he gives Trump full immunity. In 2017 and 2018 I can’t think of any case off the top of my head where he ruled against Trump. The biggest case he ruled on during the Trump presidency if I remember was the Muslim ban, and in his final term I think he joined the conservative wing of the court in every 5-4 decision.

      My what if is how would Sandra Day O’Connor or Rehnquist ruled on the ACA. O’Connor I think would have axed the mandate while I think Rehnquist would have nuked the whole law. I believe Rehnquist was more ideological between he and Roberts, and Roberts I thought was more politically calculated (give Republicans wins on most cases, especially on cases most people in the country wouldn’t notice but have a lot of under-the-hood consequences, rule very narrowly against Republicans on a case or two to pretend to show that he and SCOTUS are nonpartisan. Usually that narrow ruling would be that the font size on the lawsuit was one pixel too small or something lol).

      Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      Since West Virginia will soon have two Republican senators, I bet if judge King finally decides to retire while Harris is president, Manchin will be giving Harris a lot of advice for that vacancy. His current preferred candidate would be near 60 years old by the time that happened so hopefully he would suggest somebody else.

      Like

    • tsb1991's avatar

      Manchin has been surprisingly supportive of Harris’ campaign since it launched, thought there was a good chance of him just saying he was going to leave the top of the ballot blank or something. Given that his political career is over come January, there’s no risk in him coming out to endorse Harris.

      I know some people will be thrilled to see him gone, but I’ll honestly miss him. Did he get on my nerves a time or two? Sure, but with Manchin I think the good definitely outweighed the bad. He represents a state where come January the Democratic Party will be more or less extinct. Given the Democratic carnage in WV going back to Obama’s presidency, he had every offramp to bail from the party and didn’t. He held a seat the party had no business holding this long, and was your 50th vote last Congress to make Schumer the Majority Leader and Durbin the SJC chair. Him being in the caucus allowed for KBJ to be confirmed onto SCOTUS and for around 100 federal judges to be confirmed under a 50-50 Senate.

      Even during the Trump presidency he was there when the party needed him. I never once doubted where he stood on repealing Obamacare (and him voting to repeal it could have been a very easy vote to take given he was facing re-election in 2018) or where he stood on the Trump tax cuts. He was the Senator most likely to defect on voting to acquit Trump during his impeachment trials and stuck with the party both times.

      Also, on the topic of Manchin and blue slips, I honestly wonder how he would have handled a 4th Circuit vacancy under Biden. I feel he would have required any nominee get Capito’s blue slip and would be a no vote otherwise, and that he’d probably be the only Senator of a state with a split Senate delegation to insist on that (maybe Angus King would do that with Susan Collins).

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to Frank Cancel reply