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.
The Vetting Room 
I truly hope we get some good cloture motions sent to the floor today. If not, I fear there’s no hope until the lame duck with the budget most likely to consume most of net week.
LikeLike
Apparently House Republicans are still infighting about what kind of bill to pass, so that might buy the Senate some more time on nominations. While the Senate is supposed to be out by the end of next week, most likely on the 26th, I think funding runs out on the 30th, so if negotiations are still ongoing they still have that weekend to sort things out. Best case is that something is passed last minute with expedited time agreements and they don’t have to burn the whole week of floor time to pass a bill, in that scenario you could still have nominations confirmed for the first half of next week.
Someone here did mention the IVF votes being tomorrow, which thank god if that’s the case, I’d go and riot if this Thursday afternoon is used for anything but cloture on Kidd/Ritz/Campbell knowing Republicans are likely down at least two Senators this week.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed. I’d love to see 2-3 district nominees and then Kidd or Lipez for Thursday. That would put the senate in reasonably good shape to confirm every remaining nominee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Senator Blackburn speaking on the senate floor right before the Ritz vote. This is the early birthday present I wanted… Lol
LikeLike
I would love to hear speak before Campbell is confirmed
LikeLiked by 1 person
Under Trump, Blackburn voted more then a dozen time to confirm Circuit Court judges to states that had one or two Democratic senators despite their objections.
She can kindly shut the heck up now that the shoe’s on the other foot.
If nothing else, it’s not like Ritz is a far left liberal, Blackburn is just upset because she can’t replace Gibbons with someone to the right of her.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Looks like 47-45 in favor currently. Who hasn’t voted yet, and when can they shut down the vote?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Unfortunately there is no rhyme or reason as to when they cut the vote off. They put up a 15 minute clock at the beginning of the vote which is a joke. With the vote being 47-45 in favor for the past 10 minutes or so, you would think they just cut the vote off now since it’s been open for a hour. Perhaps they know more than Vance & Rounds is out & they are not worried about two more Republicans showing up.
LikeLike
The 15 minute clock is the minimum time allowed, it can’t be closed off within that if I remember. Decent chance everybody present has voted and will probably call the vote off when Schumer appears to wrap-up/hopefully file cloture motions? I saw a lectern come out with Merkley wandering around so I hope to god he’s not wrapping up, which would mean no cloture motions (or if he speaks following Schumer’s wrap-up).
Off the top of my head I think the non-Democratic voters are Manchin and both PA Senators? We’re at 47 with Sinema voting no which would mean 3 Democrats aren’t around to vote.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also, tried posting this a few days ago, but was having trouble getting my comments in.
They extended the suspension of Judge Newman (Fed. Circ.) for another year:
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/court-extends-suspension-97-year-old-us-federal-judge-2024-09-06/
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t get why Fetterman always misses Monday votes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Senators enjoy spending time with their families, and Fetterman is no exception.
LikeLike
That’s a poor excuse honestly. It’s not asking a lot to show up to work, especially when you’re only a few hours away.
If Shelly Moore Capito or Thom Tillis want to miss work, I’m more forgiving though.
LikeLiked by 2 people
He’s always been a lazy low work politician. I’m surprised that given you are from PA haven’t heard about that.
LikeLike
Ritz confirmed 48-46.
We have a flip, albeit with a moderate nominee but still a flip.
As I’ve said before, Julia Gibbons isn’t a far right firebreather but she is no liberal like a couple of other “flips” we’ve seen.
This is a good thing and we should all be happy about this.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Absolutely. Now let’s get the commission over to President Biden so he can sign it ASAP. Now eagerly awaiting cloture motions to be sent tonight.
LikeLike
Ritz confirmed 48 – 46. Thus makes the total number of active Circuit Judges, in terms of party nomination, evenly split 89 – 89.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is the 89-89 total including 4th circuit court judge Roger Gregory a Clinton or GW Bush judge? I count him as Bush despite Clinton initially putting him on the court via recess appointment. With pro forma sessions, we likely won’t have to ask this question ever again once he retires.
LikeLike
Yes, I actually count Roger Gregory a Clinton nominated judge due to Clinton initially nominating him, and Bush Jr. only doing so in an attempt to work with a Democratic Senate in 2001, along with being liberal leaning.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ooohhh, so it’s really 90-88 Republican-Democrat. You aren’t a federal judge until the commission is signed. Roger Gregory’s commission was signed by GW Bush not Clinton. So if you are talking theoretically, the number could be even different than 89-89 because there were other deals made prior to the filibuster being nuked & blue slips being ditched for circuit court seats.
But if we are going purely on what makes you a federal judge, which is a president signing their commission, it’s 90-88. But hopefully we get some cloture motions sent in the next hour or so. Maybe we can get a real time by the end of next week… Lol
LikeLike
Really not happy with Jia Cobb’s ruling on electoral betting that Merkley was complaining about. Does she seem to have a libertarian bent that minimizes governmental discretion? And how likely does it seem that the circuit will reverse?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The DC circuit put the decision on hold 8:30pm that night. I believe it will likely depend who is on the panel, however most of the DC circuit leans towards the government anyway. I believe it may likely be overturned on appeal. However, perhaps the Supreme Court will side with Judge Cobb. They have had made numerous rulings on betting and such…
Childs and Pan included.
Jia Cobb absolutely has a “libertarian bend” that is common amongst public defenders. They have spent their whole life’s holding the government to account.
We have seen this in a number of concurrences by Justice Kentaji Brown where she has agreed with Gorusch.
Life long public defender U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez was also the one to put age restriction laws on hold in Minnesota. I know some may reply that is preventing reversal by the 8th, however I am of the strong belief that she would have ruled like that regardless.
The libertarian bend can certainly helps liberals just as much as it can hurt, Judge Willet has been a great help to the 5th circuit liberals in a number of civil liberties and criminal cases, despite being a very conservative judge for the most part.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Jia Cobb absolutely has a “libertarian bend” that is common amongst public defenders. They have spent their whole life’s holding the government to account.”
This is why I’m not as enthused about nominating public defenders to the bench as many progressives are. I’d prefer a prosecutor with a clear liberal background over most libertarianish public defenders.
Cobb though also spent 9 years as a civil rights lawyer.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ok you know what, if they’re going to talk and debate until 8PM on a Monday, then they should’ve had a 2nd vote.
Come on Chuck, submit 2 clotures for Weds, don’t let me know!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reading Cobb’s ruling, I think she is simply following what the Cheveron ruling did, in that unless Congress lays it out, government agencies can’t do certain things on their own anymore.
Sucks but some of these judges have to play with the cards they’ve been dealt.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chevron doesn’t require Cobb to rule the other way from the agency though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cloture motions sent by Schumer…
Rebecca Pennell
Michelle Williams Court
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sounds like we’ll get cloture on Costello tomorrow but not a confirmation vote, which probably happens sometime Wednesday or Thursday morning. Was kinda hoping that we’d get cloture on one or both of the pending DDC nominees, given how important that court is. All that’s needed now for this week is a cloture motion sent out for Lipez, Campbell, or Kidd tomorrow. If Lipez is expected to get Collins I’d go for Kidd or Campbell since they’d probably be harder to confirm and Republicans are still down Vance and Rounds.
While we should also get more nominees voted out of the SJC Thursday (and we know Conway at a minimum should easily be voted out), Schumer won’t be able to file cloture on them until Monday, so if he sends out any cloture motions Thursday for any judges all that’s pending are party-line SJC votes.
In terms of commissions, in addition to now awaiting a commission for Ritz, Vargas and Provinzino are still needing a commission and as of tomorrow, Coggins will be eligible to take the bench.
LikeLiked by 2 people
5th circuit en banc has ruled again.
Ramirez joining the conservative majority in a criminal case. Douglas in the dissent joined by Willet. However it definitely splintered different ideological lines as do a lot of criminal cases. The libertarian bends of judges is always interesting to see, I’ve noticed even in the most partisan courts such as Wisconsin, judges still splinter differently.
Also I know there was a reply to my comment about my concern of Judge Federico’s ideology based of an en banc case.
The reply was along the lines of the court splintering unusually. However, the court largely splintered in consistent ideological fashion. The Obama appointees despite been moderate are certainly still Obama appointees. So my concern still stands.
Judge Pryor, Judge Pan and Judge Ramirez have been the most disappointing especially on criminal and civil liberties issues. I fear Judge Federico may join them. Though he has a very mixed bag, he has joined the conservatives on a number of cases and the liberals on a number as well. It does not seem to have a consistent pattern either.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Aiden
It sounds as if Judge Federico will fit in with the other judges on the Tenth Circuit. As I mentioned in a prior post, the that court consists almost entirely of compromise nominees.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The only solid right nominees on that Circuit appear to be Tymkovich and Eid, both from Colorado. (Maybe Holmes, but I’m not sure. He did strike down a ban on gay marriage before Obergefell.) The only solid left nominee is Rossman, also from Colorado.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Holmes sided with the liberals when Federico sided with the conservatives in a recent case. Hartz and Carson seem pretty conservative though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I may have to disagree slightly.
It seems like he has conservative positions and liberals positions on various issues. He doesn’t land in the middle on these cases. He has written very liberal opinions on criminal issues etc, but also joined positions only taken by the conservative wing of the 10th.
It makes him a moderate in some sense of the worse, but definitely not the usual type.
Usually this happens on a smaller scale with judges such as Willet or Justice Gorsuch. However the pattern is more clear with their cases and it’s not as often. So perhaps with more time a pattern will be borne out and he maybe develop a more obvious ideology.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Provinzino received her commission 9-16.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One thing that popped to mind recently is if Democrats lose the Senate, who becomes the SJC Ranking Member? I can’t imagine Durbin as a member of the leadership sticking around for a Ranking Member role where there’s no real power in that (I believe before he was chair he was just a rank-and-file member on the committee). All signs would point to Whitehouse getting that role (as he would be next in seniority too), he chairs the Budget Committee now but as the Rhode Island AG and what we’ve seen from his Senate speeches about the court his heart’s always been in the judiciary lol. That’d line him up to be the chair the next time Democrats control the Senate afterwards.
If Democrats lose control of the Senate, they’d also need to axe one of their SJC seats. Easiest one to axe would be Butler’s seat, given that she’s not running for a full term, is the most junior Democrat on the committee, and then everyone else gets to stay on.
For today in the Senate, only judiciary vote will be the Costello vote going on, and then the afternoon gets dedicated to IVF. While Costello shouldn’t have any issues getting cloture invoked today, it’ll be a good attendance gauge for tomorrow’s expected votes on judges and possibly a a cloture vote for an appeals court nominee Thursday.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m not so sure Durbin would step down from the SJC if Dems lost the senate in November. The map looks favorable in 2026 so he might be fine holding out for years, particularly with a president Harris.
And yea Butler’s seat would be the one to go if Dems lost the majority so the other members would remain the same. Besides I’m not even sure who wants to join the SJC. Three of the last four times Democrats have gotten new senators, they have ended up on the SJC (Padilla, Ossoff & Butler). So if a more senior senator wanted on, they could have been on it already. It’s the exact opposite from the Republicans.
I am really looking forward to a cloture motion being sent today. I’m hoping Schumer learned some math over the weekend & either sends Campbell or Kidd. Lipez will get Collins vote in all likelihood so no need to fast track her with Vance & Rounds out. I’m happy we got two good district court nominees cloture motions sent yesterday but it’s really time to start confirming some circuit court nominees.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cloture invoked on Costello. I think the only Democrat not in attendance was Manchin, which is the best absence you could have in advance of voting on party-line nominees (Schumer should give him a call and tell him to take the week off). In addition to the normal trio of Republicans, Romney did vote yes, flipping from a no vote, and Tillis, who did vote for Costello in the SJC, wasn’t present, giving you a total of 56 votes assuming full attendance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wish Schumer would take my advice I gave on her over a month ago. Work something out with Manchin so he goes on the campaign trail with Walz or anybody else for a few days. Then Schumer could tee up a couple circuit court nominees Manchin feels he can’t vote for. Combined with Vance & Rounds out, they might even be able to confirm Mangi with that attendance.
I know some are saying don’t force Tester to vote on him before the lame duck but I honesty don’t see him vote on Mangi making it breaking the election in either direction. He had already voted for 100% of Biden nominees. Are the commercial ads being run against him going to really be that much different if the number drops to 99.5%???
LikeLike
Not sure if I’m more surprised that Romney voted for a Biden nom or that he voted for a LGBT nom.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Romney’s retirement is the main reason the GOP caucus is likely to get worse next year in terms of judicial confirmations. For Biden’s Article III nominees, he’s given 45 ayes, 137 nays, and missed 19, making him the 7th-least bad of the bunch. Manchin to Justice will of course be a downgrade, but hopefully Justice will fall roughly in line with Capito, which is to say similar to Romney.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure about that. Romney will be replaced by John Curtis, who is pretty much another Romney, but is less vocal when he dissents from the GOP majority.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Curtis will certainly be better than Staggs would have been, but I see him fitting in more in the range of Wicker or Ernst. We’re also losing Braun, who’s been fine in terms of blue slips, but among the worst in terms of votes. There’s room for Banks to be better or worse than him, but at least there shouldn’t be a circuit vacancy from Indiana for the next 15+ years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Was thinking about it this morning and realized that Biden/The Senate have only confirmed 5 appellate judges over the objections of a home state senator (Mathis, Freeman, Johnstone, Bloomekatz, and now Ritz). Three of those had at least one senator supporting them and only the two Tennessee picks were over the objections of both senators.
There are still Kidd, Park, and Campbell awaiting confirmation, but pretty hilarious to me that Blackburn and Hagerty are going to be on the losing side of potentially 3 of the only 5 cases like this during the Biden administration.
LikeLiked by 2 people
they are now going to do the Costello confirmation at 5:30 today
LikeLiked by 2 people
Costello now likely to be confirmed at 5:30pm EST
LikeLiked by 2 people
At least in both cases of Costello & Williams, they are going in order of age starting with the oldest. Both the EDPA & CDCA have three nominees each so it would be nice if they confirm all three in order of age albeit none of the six are likely to ever become chief judge.
LikeLike
I wonder if confirming Costello today was smart. Now there will be two competing news reports. Instead of Republicans blocking IVF again being the only headline from the senate floor, Biden breaking the record for most LGBT judges confirmed will also be in the news.
LikeLike
Will any mainstream outlet even cover the LGBT record, especially considering it won’t happen till at least 6:30? While I’m not yet ringing alarm bells for the schedule of confirmations, I’m all for efficiency. After today, we’re still set to have up to 6 circuit, up to 25 district, 2 DC appeals, 4 tax, and 8 DC superior confirmations on the judicial docket alone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t really think the casual political observer will pay a significant amount of attention to Biden nominating the most of ‘x’ minority group to ‘y’ federal position when compared to potential nationwide legislation protecting IVF access. They’ll probably be a couple Reuters articles on the former and 4x as much on the latter. LGBT organizations also aren’t as hyper fixated on LGBT governmental appointees as other minority groups are like MALDEF or the such.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Agreed. I would also imagine there will be local press. I’m sure the Philadelphia metro papers will have stories about the EDPA getting a new judge and the number of judges that Biden has appointed to that court, etc. I think the win is having positive news for the administration to report in an important region of a swing state.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Humanfault, you called it https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/biden-makes-history-with-12th-senate-confirmed-lgbtq-judge-2024-09-17/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, John Kennedy is a bigoted piece of garbage.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What happened with Kennedy?
LikeLike
HOLY SH*T… I had to look up what you were talking about regarding Senator Kennedy. My God I can’t believe what I just watched. I have been very supportive of Kennedy over most other Republican senators. He has turned in his blue slip for a few district court judges, supported Dana Douglas on the 5th & had voted to confirm numerous Black men to the federal bench including Andre Mathis, when his vote could have led to his nomination failing.
But what I just watched is beyond the pale. I would be hard pressed to believe Senator Hyde-Smith would even had acted the way Kennedy just did. He was completely unhinged & disrespectful to the witness. That might have been the first time I’ve heard such a reaction from the audience members at a SJC hearing before & it was well deserved.
She held her composure extremely well under the circumstances. I actually hope this helps push Mangi’s confirmation up quicker now.
LikeLiked by 2 people
He seems pretty pissed off today at per-senator time allocations in hearings, and he’s seemed increasingly annoyed by the senate in general. While I’m generally of the opinion that it’s best that it’s best for Americans to see behind the vails that congressional GOPers have put up, it’s still disturbing to see. I think trying to put Mangi before the election comes with too high a risk of failure, but getting Ali if not Kasubhai confirmed in the next week would be a positive result.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Was a tax court judge really the only cloture?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I just saw that and if true it’s like I said Senate Dems just can’t allow themselves to have 1 week of solid judicial work, their governing antibodies reject it like a bad transplant.
I refuse to believe instead of using 2 GOP absences to confirm 2 more district judges or a district judge and cloture vote for an Appeals judge they’re choosing to spend all of Thurs on one 15 year tax judge.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know almost everybody here thinks that pure incompetence is the reason of acting of the leadership of the Democratic Caucus.
The the Republicans had a much more confortable majority and that the conditions respectively the presence might change in the two days from the moment of filing cloture until the vote. Otherwise Pennell wouldn’t have been withdrawn as well as Kasubhai in July.
But maybe facing the harsh truth, that the bulk of nominees maybe have no majority to be confirmed within this congress, it’s easier to blame Schumer and the whipping team to be stupid fools. And not even think about the scenario I wrote above might be true. I hope it’s not, but with Rounds and Vance out, Rebecca Pennell should have the voices, but obviously has not, although she’s far away to be the most controversial judicial nominee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe Sen Schumer is just tired of being Majority Leader. It’s almost like he’s throwing in the towel. To waste time with a non sensical tax court nominee when you have over a dozen Circuit and District nominees who need confirmed and with Rounds and Vance out, what a case of political malpractice.
If he fought hard enough, you should be able to get Tax Court nominees voice voted
LikeLiked by 1 person
Inexcusable
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Pennell cloture motion was withdrawn
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is absolutely imperative that Biden announces new nominees so that we no longer have to scroll through 400+ comments to write updates on this post.
LikeLiked by 2 people
and when it rains….
Cloture withdrawn for Rebecca Pennell for the Washington seat.
Just go give McConnel the gavel Chuck, this is embarrassing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
perhaps cloture motions sent out Thursday for an appeals court nominee and district nominees also…
LikeLiked by 1 person
After a week almost entirely focused on judicial confirmations and KNOWING 2 GOP senators will be out we get 3 federal judges confirmed before they spend next week on the CR then leave for another month.
Senate democrats are a joke, I better not see any more BS articles saying the judiciary is their main focus.
I’m done, let me off this ride.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s what you’re choosing Mike when you support the Democrats. The judiciary is never going to be the same focus for the Democrats the way it is for the Republicans, no matter how much you want them to care. Democrats have different priorities at this point in time, and just be happy they’ll be confirming anyone at all. Not all of the current pending nominees (including circuit nominees not named Mangi) will be confirmed, and everyone here should realize and be ready for it. We are in an era of time where more nominees across the political spectrum have been politicized and that is being shown on display right now. It is what it is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So we’ll have Michelle Williams Court tomorrow and a tax judge..hopefully we’ll see something else tomorrow.
LikeLiked by 3 people
At this point, I’m assuming some combo of Manchin, Sinema, CCM, Rosen, Fetterman, and Tester are making a bigger stink behind closed doors than they’re broadcasting. If Dems manage to keep control, it will be interesting to see how the caucus handles itself without Manchin and Sinema as scapegoats.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The problem is you have two indies in Manchin and Sinema who are now wild card on nominees.
Even if you have Vance and Rounds out doesn’t do much if any Democratic senator is gone as well or is balking on voting on certain nominees given that.
Like it or not, it’s political season and some senators aren’t going to want votes on some nominees until after November.
I know folks don’t want to hear that but that is likely going on behind the scenes.
It’s why there is no way in heck Mangi is getting a vote before the general election, Kennedy antics etc. aside.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree that some of those senators, along with maybe a few not on that list, will emerge as the new conservative wing of the Democratic Party.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If she’s elected, I see Slotkin on that list for sure
LikeLiked by 1 person
You keep repeating this without any reasoning or evidence. Slotkin opened her campaign calling for the elimination of the filibuster.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I trust her voting record more than her current campaign. She may vote to eliminate the filibuster but I see her as being a maverick in not being afraid to vote opposite the party line
LikeLike
I was napping so I missed the Tax Court cloture filing, but I caught the wrap-up on Pennell’s cloture being withdrawn. Are they expecting numerous Democratic Senators out between tomorrow and Thursday? Also interesting the Pennell’s cloture was withdrawn but not Court, is Court expected to get Collins/Murkowski while Pennell would not get any Republican support?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Most likely. I’m still surprised at least Lipez wasn’t lined up. Who can say?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know we have a while until we can reflect on Biden’s 4-year record on judges, but I at least want to start it now lol.
*Assuming Schumer & Durbin find a way to confirm Mangi, Campbell, Kidd, and whoever the 3rd CCA nominee will be, that would be 48 Circuit Court Judges confirmed in 4 years, with the biggest senate majority being 51-49, that’s beyond phenomenal. Not to mention bringing balance/flipping circuits damaged by Trump (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 9th, DC) with left leaning to outright progressive judges who will be ruling on important cases for the next 15 years at minimum. Can’t help but give the trio of Biden, Schumer, and Durbin a healthy B+.
On the district court level, there is a lot of room to criticize Biden and Durbin for capitulating to hack GOP senators and by standing by the blue slip rule when the GOP had 0 qualms about getting rid of it when they had power. But Biden’s history of bipartisanship and senate tenure helped him to strike deals with GOP in deep-red states like Oklahoma, Wyoming, South Dakota, Louisiana, and Nebraska… kept those seats from being filled with FedSoc hacks for at least a decade (hopefully). Most importantly, Pres. Biden has diversified the judiciary with public defenders, civil rights attorneys, and other lawyers with diverse backgrounds. While the overall percentage of the federal judiciary may not change drastically from just Biden’s judges, hopefully it starts a trend in Dem administrations to seriously consider lawyers with different backgrounds. Over a 30-year span, if Dem administrations commit to this trend, it’s possible to see 30+% of the judiciary overall with diverse backgrounds besides the standard corporate law and prosecutors. His new judges have spent their lives working for decent pay and won’t be as likely to retire for a massive payday a big law firm. While he will eventually leave about 40+ unfilled seats due to GOP obstructionism, those can and hopefully will be filled by Pres. Harris (if only she had a SJC with a ruthless streak) Overall, I’d have to give them a B-.
I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts.
LikeLiked by 2 people
District courts:
They’ll manage to fill 28/36 vacancies with a GOP blue slip that opened last congress or before, as opposed to 3/25 that opened this congress and 2/6 that were at a date TBD. All while limiting the GOPers they put on the bench to ~10, the most partisan being Kelly Rankin (?). While some senators are simply impossible to work with, I’d hope a new administration with senate control to have a similar level of success with early vacancies, but I’d give a higher grade on that front.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Assuming everyone remaining is eventually confirmed (still very up in the air although I think it’ll happen) I don’t think I can give Biden anything less than an A.
That would be 240+ judges with nearly every non blue slip vacancy filled and many filled with outstanding and diverse nominees. And with no more than 50-51 senators at any given time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lawrence O’Donnell makes the point that stakes have never been higher for judicial nominations than in this election. Starts at the 11 minute mark
https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/lawrence-on-trump-s-taylor-swift-attack-the-most-hateful-mind-in-presidential-history-219492933597
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the 2016 stakes were higher for judicial nominations
LikeLiked by 2 people
I perhaps disagree.
I think republicans tend to be better with the judiciary.
I would not be surprised at all, if Alito and Thomas step down.
Paving the way for the likes of Britt Grant, James Ho, Bibas, Bumatay, R Nelson. The list goes on, forpaper qualified candidates for the Supreme Court all which will solidify the next 20+ years of civil liberties eradication.
A conservative Supreme Court is more powerful than a democratic congress.
This election if done 10 years ago may not be so important, but with judicial strategy far more focused and effective it’s a different story
LikeLiked by 1 person
The difference is that the next president is going to have far fewer inherited vacancies than Trump had in 2017
LikeLiked by 2 people
Might have missed this but looks like Obama appointee Daniel D. Crabtree (D. Kan.) will be taking senior status on 08/11/25.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps a President Harris can work out a 2 for 1 deal with the Kansas senators to fill both vacancies. I’m still mad we got a compromise pick for the circuit court seat without filling the vacant district court seat. But after the Wamble debacle, I guess the administration just wanted the seat filled.
LikeLike
No disrespect to the Tax Court nominee, but I don’t see why, if Schumer was going to pull Pennell, he couldn’t have slotted in Murphy or one of the other CDCA nominees for Thursday votes. Tax Court and D.C. local courts can all be done in the lame duck, prob with a lot of voice votes.
My guess is Tester’s desire to be back in MT as much as possible is driving the schedule, but I just don’t see Murphy, for one, needing every Dem vote. He probably gets Collins since it’s a First Circuit seat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just to get this right, the senate Dems have a 51/47 advantage this week and they can’t confirm any of the 10 district or 4 circuit nominees waiting for a floor vote?
Cool cool, glad they’ll lose the majority next congress, at least then their inability to confirm judges will make sense.
To anyone saying they’ll confirm dozens of judges during the lame duck, I got back news for you, Manchin won’t change his tune for most of those votes, Rounds will be back and hopefully so will Vance so they’ll have the same problem then as they do now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mike, it’s not really “dozens” at this point. After Court is confirmed this afternoon, there will be 29 nominees (5 circuit, 24 district) left to confirm. When you adjust for the four nominees going nowhere this term and the three remaining blue/circuit vacancies it’s really 28. Additional nominees may be confirmed next week if the budget bill drags out.
28 nominees in 5 weeks is very feasible, particularly when 22 of them will only require 2 hours of debate.
I would have felt a lot better if there had been action on a few more nominees this week too, but the concern isn’t warranted at this point.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Cloture invoked on Court with Collins voting yes. Only absent Democrat was Wyden. Final vote 51-44. I did read that Pennell was pulled due to attendance, but with those numbers, it’d be 48-47 if Manchin, Sinema, and Collins all voted no, unless sone of the non-voting Republicans are in attendance?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do not think Dems will get all judicial nominees confirmed this term, due to lack of time or due to not enough votes… I’m most irritated by the fact that if Mangi does not get confirmed there will be 2 third circuit appeals seats left open…Biden should get more then trumps number of district court nominees confirmed…I’m hoping 20 more in the lame duck and a few next week…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Biden’s still got nearly a month to get a final batch out. I’d be shocked if he doesn’t submit a nominee for the Delaware seat. I wouldn’t be surprised if none of the four blue district seats (Curiel, Carney, Kanter replacement, Netburn replacement) get nominees.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t see them leaving all four of those district seats, including 3 California seats, vacant.
My guess is the two vacancies receive nominees next month. And who knows, maybe they can work out a deal to get Netburn confirmed too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The last confirmations at the Southern District were in March 2023, although two unsuccessful nominees have been named since, I seriously doubt, that they are able to find a replacement until the end of the year under those circumstances.
At the Central District it’s just one nominee left, and Padilla, Butler and Schiff are living there, so that might work, but there has also not been a judicial confirmation in 2024 until today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s possible….but that would be quite bad to leave both SD CA seats vacant when Curiel has been gone for a year now. The situation with Kanter is a bit easier to explain.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see Harris winning and re nominating a few of bidens nominees
LikeLiked by 1 person
Confirmed, with two more Dems missing. Now they’re onto the Taylor nomination.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Since the Senate went ahead and confirmed that State Dept nominee that’s been sitting on the calendar since before the August break, that means they could get the Tax Court judge confirmed tomorrow (cloture vote in the morning and then confirm in the afternoon before leaving). Big question tomorrow would be if cloture motions are sent out for any nominations for next week and if Tuesday will be used for nominations or the government funding.
The SJC is going to vote out more nominees tomorrow but Schumer won’t be able to file cloture on them for next week, so either it could be another crack at voting on party-line nominees, or there’s 3 additional Tax Court judges, 5 or 6 local DC judges, and then two DC Appeals Court judges they could vote on. Best-case scenario is that the final vote before any votes are held on funding the government is cloture on an appeals court nominee, which in that case they could be confirmed when they get back after the election.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nominations hearing also posted on the SJC site for next week. Since no hearing was held at the beginning of the month hopefully this will include all six district court nominees from late July and August, and that would still leave open a November slot for additional nominees.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Today marks 4 years since the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Aside from the overruling of Roe v. Wade, replacing Ginsburg with Barrett actually has had little impact. This might sound crazy, but given the vote breakdowns this year, I would actually put Barrett to the left of John Roberts. Of course, the 5 conservative men (Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, & Kavanaugh) are doing the bidding of Trump and the GOP, leaving Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, & Barrett (in some cases) in the dust just as they did with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, & Kagan.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And that helps cement the conclusion of the male justices taking away womens rights…..
LikeLiked by 2 people
It sure seems that way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think Breyer’s retirement also factored into this, now that all 5 male justices are conservatives, they seem to be more willing to use misogynistic attacks on the liberal justices.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Barrett is no liberal nor is she even a moderate.
Gorsuch has sided with liberals on substantive law far more than Barrett has. This is also true of Justice Roberts.
Barrett largely concurs with liberals for procedural reasons. Even in cases where she has criticised the court for going to far, it largely does not matter as she still agrees with them on the substantive issue.
There are a couple cases where she agreed with the liberal bloc, but a few are because Barrett like many conservatives believes in a significant reduction of who the court grants standing too. Such that a conservative case gets dismissed for lack of standing, as we have seen a few recently. This often hurts democrats anyway in future cases.
I do agree though that I am interested to see how things progress for the court. She does seem the most concerned about perception and we definitely have not heard the levels of concern from Roberts that we use to see. This was very evident in the presidential immunity case.
She is so far the first conservative justice to come out in favour of more significant ethics reform. I do hope we see her change her mind on more substantive issues as well.
However where it matters on agency law, immigration, civil rights and constitutional jurisprudence she has continued to be a very right wing justice.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I just flatly disagree with this assertion.
I also think its incorrectness will continue to be shown in the next few years of the court.
Patel is a significant immigration decision that was decided 5-4, signficiantly limiting judicial review on immigration cases. With Gorsuch not being enough in Immigration and Native American rights cases, we will see significant reductions in their protections.
E.g Arizona v Navajo Nation
Environmental protections. Sackett v EPA. 5-4 with Barrett in the majority. Significantly gutted the ability of agencies to deal with environment protections.
In voting rights law the court ruled 5-4 in Allen v Milligan, however Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence effectively disagreeing with some of the liberals core holding. Making it almost just a procedural Victory. Leading to a likelihood of a 5-4 Majority absolutely ripping through what’s left of the VRA in the next few terms.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Barrett is indeed very conservative, and often a hack like the others. And you make a good point — just having 6 conservative justices instead of 5 is super helpful for the GOP because various justices break off on different issues. I would still say that Barrett is now to Roberts’s left, but 5 of the 6 GOP justices (all except for Alito) have dissented with the 3 liberals at some point.
– Replacing Ginsburg with Barrett indeed jepoardizes the rights of Native Americans and immigrants, given that Gorsuch has a more libertarian bend on those issues that is not shared by any conservative justice. 5 of the 6 conservative justices (all except Gorsuch) have also indirectly attacked LGBTQ+ rights (Gorsuch concurred in the judgement).
– Kavanaugh’s vote on Sackett v. EPA surprised me, and to date is the only time where he and the 3 liberals dissented together.
-I think that Roberts will join in killing the VRA. Roberts has already chipped away at the VRA piece by piece (see Shelby County v. Holder, Abbott v. Perez, Brnovich v. DNC). The only issue Roberts and Kavanaugh seemed to have in Allen v. Milligan was speed — and just 1 year later, the conservatives delivered a 6-3 ruling upholding a similar gerrymander in South Carolina.
– Barrett sided with the liberals in a major environmental case, a number of death penalty cases, and a case regarding Arizona’s proof of citizenship law.
– Roberts is still to Barrett’s left on abortion, though there appears to be limits on how far Roberts, Barrett, & Kavanaugh will go
LikeLiked by 1 person
The first vote tomorrow is at 1:45 pm!!!
It’s just so frustrating to know they have the time to hold more votes but the Senate Majority Leader can’t whip his caucus into 50 votes for A SINGLE ONE of the other 14 nominees.
Really folks, you have an issue with all 14 of them?!
LikeLiked by 1 person
On what Lawrence O’Donnell said last night, yes this election matters but in 2016, Democrats had a chance to finally get a liberal Supreme Court and our side blew it, plain and simple.
Hillary warned people Trump/Republicans could appoint up to 3 justices or more and they didn’t believe her.
And thus we now have the worst court since the Taney era IMO.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Pretty much this, but we also blew it in 2014. A better Democratic turnout then would have saved three Dem senators. It wouldn’t have been enough to prevent the loss of the Senate then, but we would have been able to gain it back in 2016. And that would have helped either confirm Hillary’s nominees or restrain Trump’s reactionary ones.
Without the Senate, even if Hillary had been elected a liberal SCOTUS would have been temporary. Garland would have been confirmed, but replacing Ginsburg and Breyer would have been hard. And 2018 would have only increased the GOP Senate majority.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reading that with the House CR bill failing, the Senate might take the lead, which means Schumer may file cloture on a bill (or motion to proceed to the bill) tomorrow, which if that’s the case that’s curtains for nominations this session, as the funding bill would take up the whole week of floor time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I fly 14 hours halfway across the world, land, cut my phone on only to see one district footnote confirmed & no new cloture motions sent. REALLY???
LikeLike
Ryan Park was held over at the request of Sen Tillis, who is absent to attend to sick family member. All other judicial nominees voted out, Gail Weilheimer was an 11-10 vote.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For the vote totals:
-Park, Hawley, and Perry were all 13-8 (Graham and Tillis)
-Weilheimer was a party-line vote as mentioned
The non-judicial nominees:
-Adams (NDWV Marshal) was 17-4 (Lee, Cruz, Hawley, Blackburn voting no)
-Lemmon (SDWV Marshal) was 16-5 (Lee, Cruz, Hawley, Cotton, Blackburn voting no)
Obviously if Tillis was in attendance the story would be his anticipated blowup over Park, but still interesting he supported all three nominees not voted on party-lines today.
Schumer I think did confirm he’d send a cloture for a funding bill today, decent chance it’s the only cloture sent out today and the vote would follow the Jenkins confirmation vote to the Tax Court. Best case is the procedural votes on the funding bill start Tuesday and another nominee is teed up for then.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That should also say Conway and not Park on the vote, which I wanted to comment anyway that that was probably the most surprising vote for me today, thought he might’ve gotten more than two Republicans with Johnson’s blue slip.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, unfortunately I have a feeling we’re done with nominees until November. Unless they decide to voice vote or expedite Conway maybe once the spending bill is done next week.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why would this matter, he could vote no by proxy.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Kind of a bummer on Park, but I guess he was never getting voted on until the lame duck anyway. I’m guessing the meeting next week will be cancelled anyway.
Good to see a handful get bipartisan support though. That will make for smoother confirmations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Coggins received her commission on 9/18 to the EDCA.
LikeLiked by 1 person