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

  2. Mike's avatar

    Senate Dems needed 3 weeks to confirm 7 judges with 2 GOP absences.

    I need the people who say I’ve been overreacting to explain exactly how these same people will confirm 25+ judges in 5 weeks while handling the pentagon budget, another CR or annual gov. budget and confirming new members of a potential Harris administration.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Zack's avatar

    Sinema and Manchin have decided to be jerks on their way out the door and that has made it harder then it has to be to confirm nominees right now, even with Vance/Rounds out.
    I don’t think in the lame duck period either of them will care to stick around, nor will some Republicans so that should make it easier.
    Still annoying as heck and I won’t be sad to see either of them go.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Joe's avatar

      Yes, GOP absences during the lame duck will be key. Plus Tester, Rosen, Brown, will all either be newly re elected or on their way out of the senate so they will have nothing to lose by taking hard votes. The calculus will be way different.

      Sinema and Manchin are wild cards. To be honest, Manchin seems to be doing a heel turn back to the Democrats again (voting for Ritz and leaning towards backing Harris again), so I am optimistic he will play ball. He generally has throughout his entire career. Just google “The Manchin Cycle”.

      Sinema I can see mostly staying home in Arizona, but perhaps she can be persuaded to show up and support Democrats. I assume she wants a highly paid K Street gig once her senate career is done so hopefully she will play nice. Schumer does still have the confirmation of Sharad Desai (a Sinema ally) that he can use as a carrot too.

      Liked by 2 people

      • keystone's avatar

        In the event that the Dems win the presidency and the GOP wins the Senate, I wonder if Harris should recruit Sinema to join her staff in a role where she could oversee judicial noms. She seems to have very good relationships with the GOP side and she’s pretty good at picking judges. Not sure if that role exists or is Sinema would actually want it but why not.

        Also, I’m not totally sure how Sinema and Harris feel about each other. I know Harris endorsed Sinema fairly early in her Senate run. But I also know that Sinema was the only no-show when VP Harris invited all of the women senators to the VP residence for a bonding dinner.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Lillie's avatar

    Given the… uh… rather unique story that just came out on CNN about the gov of NC candidate’s rather odd online behaviors on porn message boards this could be good for Nc dems/races as a whole. Apparently the GOP is panicking in the state.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      Terrific news on Ritz receiving his commission. I know a lot of people never doubted Gibbons backtracking but when it comes to a Republican judge being replaced by a Biden judge, I don’t feel satisfied until the commission is signed.

      I gave Ritz a B as a judge but just like Kolar, a flip is a flip. Anytime we can replace a Republican appointed circuit court judge is a great day.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Zack's avatar

    @Dequan,
    Ritz isn’t likely going to be a flaming liberal (we knew that) especially on criminal justice issues but I don’t see him joining with the George W/Trump judges on voting restrictions, anti-LGBT and other right wing issues too often.
    That matters, especially on that court, which has been under the radar in hackiness because of the 5th and SCOTUS.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I definitely agree. Ritz got a B from me but I’m perfectly fine with that when replacing a Republican judge who he almost certainly will be to the left of. Once Campbell is confirmed, it’s crazy to think for the first time in my life all Tennessee seats on the 6th will be Democrat appointees. Ritz should be the least liberal & even that should be good.

      Like

    • raylodato's avatar

      These are big. Both Rosenthal and Hanen, who are future vacancies, were GOP appointees. If Allred wins and Harris gets to nominate to all the vacancies (present and announced) in SDTX, this could go from where it is now (8D-9R-2V) to 12D-7R.

      Similar to EDLA, although there’s no chance of taking a Senate seat there. This could go from 5-5-2 to 8D-4R if Kennedy and Cassidy cooperate. Long shot, I know, since I think Kennedy is going to give Harris a harder time than he did Biden in 2021.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Joe's avatar

    I agree on Kennedy likely giving Harris a harder time on Biden. However, this would make 4 Louisiana and 7 Texas vacancies, so I have to figure a package deal can be worked out to fill at least a handful of these. If Dems can hold the senate, even at 50/50, that would of course give them even more leverage.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mike's avatar

      Dems are probably not going to hold the senate, that’s why I’m so frustrated they’re not confirming as many of these nominees as possible.

      Any they don’t confirm now means that’s one more nominee a GOP senate can use to bargain for FedSoc judges in 1 for 1 deals.

      Every fewer confirmation now gives the GOP bargaining power, I want the 1 for 1 deals to be for replacing two GOP nominees with a GOP/Dem nominee not a blue seat in CA they could have replaced now being bundled with another 60 year old moderate in Texas or a worse, a 45 year old conservative.

      Liked by 1 person

    • star0garnet's avatar

      The manager’s amendment is number 3290 in case anybody’s interested. The text matches the version that passed the senate last month. While I wouldn’t be surprised if everything gets pushed four years when it passes after the election, if it stands, that would mean:

      14 in 2025: 3 in CA and OK, 2 in TX, 1 in DE, FL, IN, IA, NJ, and NY

      11 in 2027: 4 in CA, 2 in FL and TX, 1 in AZ, GA, and ID

      10 in 2029: 3 in CA and TX, 1 in CO, DE, NE, and NY

      11 in 2031: 4 in CA, 2 in FL and TX, 1 in AZ, NJ, and NY

      10 in 2033: 3 in CA, 2 in FL and TX, 1 in CO, GA, and NY

      10 in 2035: 4 in CA, 2 in FL and TX, 1 in NJ and NY

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Aiden's avatar

    I know we have discussed this before, is there a way for us to see the reviews law clerks have made about judges? I remember hearing about complaints made against Judge Sanchez. I was wondering if anyone has heard about anymore complaints against federal judges/ more information on old allegations.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. tsb1991's avatar

    Apparently the House reached a deal to fund the government for the rest of the year. If this is what passes, maybe the Senate just takes that up instead of their own funding bill? Best case is cloture is withdrawn on the Senate funding bill and maybe some nominations get voted on Wednesday, since the Senate would need to wait a few days to pass the House bill.

    Liked by 1 person

      • tsb1991's avatar

        If the House were to pass something today, even if it was immediately sent to the Senate I don’t think it could get on the Senate calendar for Schumer to file cloture on until Tuesday, which would setup a Thursday vote. Since the vote would be a Thursday I’m sure they’d want to expedite the vote and not stay in DC for a minute longer so they can all bail out and campaign for a month (funding doesn’t end until next week so there still is a cushion if needed).

        If the House bill is the path I hope the Senate doesn’t waste any time passing their bill, and then just use the House bill when it gets over, since that’d open up Wednesday to the possibility of nominations. I’m keeping expectations low but one can hope.

        Also, knowing Schumer, any cloture motions sent out at the end of the week before the break will almost assuredly be for a combination of Perry, Conway, and Hawley.

        Liked by 1 person

    • tsb1991's avatar

      For me, the issue isn’t having to spend floor time on him but I was surprised he only got two Republican votes in the SJC, I figured Ron Johnson, who’s in the top tier of psychotic Senate Republicans, would carry a lot of weight in his support for the nominee. It’s not like they’re being asked to support a nominee supported by Susan Collins, who has a much lower bar when it comes to support of a Democratic president’s judges.

      It’ll be interesting to see his Conway’s support from non-SJC Republicans. We know he’ll have a floor of five votes from Republicans (G/C/M, Tillis, Johnson), so he could possibly get support from someone like Romney.

      Liked by 2 people

  25. tsb1991's avatar

    Schumer wrapped up. We did get cloture on Conway, which is honestly one more cloture motion than I expected to get filed today (and it’s the oldest vacancy in the country, no?). Senate will confirm that State Dept. nominee tomorrow and the first procedural vote on the funding bill, so Conway might get squeezed in Wednesday?

    Best case is a cloture motion is sent out tomorrow for an appeals court nominee and that gets squeezed in sometime Thursday.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Rick's avatar

    Going back to the donations topic, I’ve sent money to Harris campaign as well as Tester’s campaign. And will send money to Brown’s campaign as well. And probably few more senate candiates as stakes are TOOO high to not get involved.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I truly think if democrats can get across the hurdle this election, the future looks good. The 2026 senate map is more favorable than this year so even a 50-50 split could lead to 51 or 52 Dems in 2026. The House looks good as well.

      I can’t imagine what a Trump-less MAGA Republican Party will look like. We might get a Cotton or Hawley type presidential nominee in 2028. They would have all of Trump’s horrible policies without half his entertainment value. Harris would be in a decent position for reelection barring any catastrophic first term. If Congress can pass the Judges Act, a President Harris filling the additional seats along with the vacancies that occur over the next four years & a little bit of luck on the SCOTUS (Voluntary or involuntary), & the judiciary could actually look ok by 2028. Just really need to win in 43 days.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Rick's avatar

        Hopefully, if this election can turn into something like the 2008 election, that would help with the down ballot races.

        I would like to think that MOST voters are just so sick of Trumpism and all its horrors. I can’t imagine most people want to go back to that monster, it’s just so difficult to comprehend.

        Harris has been enormous sums of money and people have been signing up in large numbers to volunteer for her campaign. And those things probably are accounted for in a poll..

        Liked by 2 people

  27. Aiden's avatar

    I’ve had some spare time recently, so I’ve been doing some research into the different circuits and how Biden’s judges fit in ideologically. I found this en banc denial from the 3rd.
    Where Freeman dissented in a ballot counting case, joined by the more liberal wing of the court. Judge Chung and Montgomery-Reeves, joined the majority.

    From the recent cases and some en banc activity, it’s fair to say that Freeman is the most liberal judge on the 3rd circuit and as we can see in Ranges and some other cases, she has a strong libertarian bend. (I am sure no one is surprised)

    Montgomery-Reeves is perhaps the second most liberal out the two and also showed a libertarian bend through the Ranges decision. However Chung is less clear, she definitely seems to be the most moderate. (She also joined the court only a couple days too late to hear the Ranges case)

    https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2024-04-30-Order-dckt-.pdf

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Aiden's avatar

    The 1st circuit hopefully turns out more liberal than prior to Biden.

    So far Gelpi is very moderate. Joining conservative opinions in en banc cases, criminal cases and recently a sexual assault case relating to a Delta flight attendant, which sparked the dissent of Judge Thompson. I hope this case will be picked up en banc, En bancs are as we know super helpful in figuring out judicial ideology quite quickly. The first circuit doesn’t have a lot of en banc activity, as there are only 6 judges.

    Judge Montecalvo has been very good so far. Dissenting in multiple cases, from conservative or moderate opinions.

    Judge Rikelman has so far been pretty solid. However since there has been no en banc cases nor many dissents it’s unclear where she sits compared to her colleagues. She has 1 dissent I could find, where she would have limited damages for unjust enrichment.

    My concern is that if Lipez and Aframe turn out moderate, then the court still says a largely moderate liberal court.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I think Rikelman will be a solid liberal. Montecalvo seems to be pretty progressive as well. I think Lipez will be to the left of Kayatta so that should be a net positive. Aframe certainly should be to the left of GW Bush judge Howard.

      Gelpi is more conservative than I would like. There were better choices than this GW Bush district court judge, even Biden’s youngest PR district court judge. Even still, he is to the left of the Reagan judge he replaced. So the 1st Circuit is much better off once Lipez is confirmed than it was the day the 2020 election started.

      Like

      • Aiden's avatar

        Rikelman looks to be pretty good so far, hopefully that continues.
        Montecalvo has been brilliant, very happy with her!

        Gelpi is to the right of his predecessor.
        Judge Torruella.
        Torruella was a staunch liberal on issues such as the Insular cases. He wrote lengthy dissents, despite it largely been Supreme Court precedent stopping change. Gelpi rejected en banc review in a similiar case and has been no extraordinary progressive on any other Puerto Rican rights cases.

        Torruella joined an opinion striking down Parental notification and it was unanimously reversed by SCOTUS. Where it matters too on criminal cases, I would say Gelpi will be more conservative.
        Torruella dissented when the court denied the Boston bomber change of venue and seemed to be liberal on Habeas and criminal cases at least to some degree.

        ”Judge Torruella, though nominated by Republican presidents — Gerald R. Ford had earlier named him to a district court — was considered relatively liberal”https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/us/juan-torruella-groundbreaking-us-appeals-judge-dies-at-87.html

        I really hope Aframe and Lipez are liberals instead of moderates. I think considering Barron and Gelpi are moderates, it comes down to the new two as to how an en banc 1st circuit would be ideologically.

        Liked by 1 person

  30. Joe's avatar

    I think the senate is probably trying to wrap up this week, so it’s unlikely we see anyone else.

    As it stands, the senate will have 5 appellate and 19 district nominees to confirm in the lame duck. Those numbers could potentially expand to 6 appellate and 23 district nominees depending on the next batch of nominees (which is likely still a few weeks away).

    Liked by 1 person

  31. star0garnet's avatar

    As the three generally gettable GOP votes have been more resistant to Biden’s nominees over the past couple of months, probably at the direction of McConnell and/or Daines, do we think their votes may be more gettable in the lame duck? Not for Mangi, Kasubhai, Russell, or Sooknanan, but for Pennell, Murphy, Valenzuela, Hwang, Henry, hopefully Kidd? And does the scenario we end up in (Harris, Dem sen; Harris, GOP sen; Trump, GOP sen) affect their gettability?

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Joe's avatar

    I don’t see much changing with regards to Collins and Murkowski. They don’t like Trump and do their own thing.

    Graham perhaps may be more amenable to voting for nominees after in the next term after Trump has been defeated.

    Liked by 1 person

    • star0garnet's avatar

      Something has been off on Collins that makes me pretty sure she isn’t just doing her own thing, unless it’s some protracted negotiation with Manchin.

      She’s:

      1/1 for SCOTUS
      31/44 for circuits (70%)
      8/15 for NY district courts (53%)
      20/25 for CA district courts (80%)
      116/121 for other Article III nominees (96%)

      The only district court nominees she’s opposed outside of NY and CA have been Urias in 2021, Guzman and AliKhan last year, and Mehalchick and Kiel this year. Valanzuela, Hwang, and Wise may garner opposition due to whatever her beef is with the CA senators, but opposing Kasubhai, Russell, Ali, Sooknanan, Pennell, Murphy, and Henry would more than double her stat. And the latter three I don’t see as any more controversial than the median Biden nominee. Her recent opposition to Maldonado’s circuit appointment is also probably the most surprising of her circuit nays.

      Liked by 1 person

  33. tsb1991's avatar

    As I speculated, the first cloture vote on the Senate’s funding bill won’t happen today, so better chance they just pass whatever the House passes. Not sure when that happens but decent chance the Senate stays beyond Thursday afternoon. If that’s the case I hope Thursday becomes something resembling a full day and cloture motions get sent out for Thursday today. You could still do Perry or Hawley at a bare minimum.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Joe's avatar

    If they know they’re going to stay Friday, I’d love to see them go ahead and set up a vote for Lipez. They’ll be motivated to get out of town, so they’ll likely shorten cloture time to 12 or 18 hours.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Dequan's avatar

    Senator Tuberville is back up to his old tricks again. Senator Booker just tried to confirm via unanimous consent, two US Sentencing Commission nominees. Tuberville just objected without giving any reason.

    As to the earlier comments, if the senate is going to stay in session past Thursday for the budget, they most certainly should keep confirming judges. The two Illinois nominees plus Brian Murphy would be the most likely. At the very least some more Superior Court of DC nominees. My hopes would be Campbell, Kidd or Lipez.

    Like

    • Jamie's avatar

      The favorite for this seat would be Judge Andrew Jacobs, who was also appointed to the court of Appeals by Hobbs. Jacobs is a very well respected attorney who was a member of the American Constitution Society.

      I would also remind you all that two of the judges who upheld the Arizona 1800s total abortion ban are on the ballot for retention. There’s a decent chance that they may be ousted, which would give Hobbs two more spots on the state Supreme Court.

      Liked by 1 person

  41. tsb1991's avatar

    Was about to post that all six nominees pending a hearing will appear at the hearing tomorrow. Guess the only difference between holding a combined hearing vs having separate hearings since they were two separate batches was that you could’ve gotten the first batch (with an early September hearing) out of the SJC quicker. This week would be their holdover week while they could be voted out the week after the election. With everyone on this hearing the likely holdover date is 11/14 with them being voted out on 11/21.

    With that said, until they are voted out of the SJC on 11/21, once Hawley is confirmed (which will probably be Schumer’s first cloture motion filed once the government funding bill passes), we’re back to square one with everybody remaining being party-line votes. Since we’ll be in the lame duck I’d hope the remaining Tax Court Judges for example, two of whom were unanimous SFC votes, get expedited/voice voted, along with maybe a couple of local DC judges getting expedited (the DC Appeals Court judges will all likelihood need cloture).

    Liked by 2 people

  42. Dequan's avatar

    Looking at her SJCQ, Keli Neary should have an interesting hearing tomorrow. She briefed opposing Counsel for two different cases that likely will come up. Republican Party of PA v. Boockvar (2020) & Donald J Trump for President v. Boockvar (2021).

    Like

  43. Zack's avatar

    @Dequan, she likely will but I still expect Brindisi to get most of the fire, not just from his time in Congress but the election lawsuit that went back and forth that was finally decided in his Republican opponent’s favor.
    Unlike the issues Trump/Republicans raised, there were valid issues with what happened in Oswego, to the point both the Republican and Democratic clerks got tossed out on their butts.
    Leave it to Republicans to leave that out of today’s hearing though.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. Dequan's avatar

    Anthony Brindisi is definitely getting the majority of questioning than the other five nominees combined at the SJC hearing. Senators Graham & Lee seemed to focus on his sponsorship of the Equality Act. Senator Kennedy had a strange line of questioning for him, one that I had a hard time understanding where he was going. Of course he mentioned he only has 5 minutes to question 6 witnesses.

    Senator Blackburn started off asking all six nominees if they had ever been a judge before. Only judge Brindisi answered yes. She only questioned him but of course threw in digs about the Biden administration sending unqualified nominees to the federal bench. She first asked about a New York law he cosponsored then went on to the Equality Act.

    Senator Cruz then gave the most angriest line of questioning to judge Brindisi after complaining about the Biden administration trying to ram through 6 left wing nominees right before an election (I had to bite my tongue not to bust out laughing at that one). Senator Cruz then asked Sharad Desai if Honeywell sold national military trade secrets to China.

    At the beginning of the hearing there was a much lighter moment. Senator Durbin got the seniority of the Georgia senators wrong. He said Warnock was the senior senator of Georgia. Ossoff & Warnock corrected him letting him know O comes before W so Ossoff is more senior…lol

    Like

    • tsb1991's avatar

      Yeah, the seniority on Ossoff and Warnock is weird, since they were both sworn in on the same day. None of the first few tiebreakers apply (served as VP, served as Senator previously, served in House, served as governor, population of state), and while Warnock is older I guess the final tiebreaker was Ossoff’s standing in the alphabet.

      Doesn’t look like they’ll be any drama to passing the CR, it might happen as early as today. A unanimous consent agreement was reached to just straight up vote to pass the bill (needing 60 votes), so no cloture or anything is needed. If passed tonight, maybe Perry gets confirmed tomorrow, with cloture in the morning and confirmation as Senators run for the exits? Would hate to have an afternoon cloture vote and then wait nearly two months for confirmation.

      On the subject of Brindisi, it’d be a Congressman-to-federal judge pipeline, was the last federal judge to Senator George Mitchell? Not only did he serve six years as Majority Leader, I wonder if he put an extra emphasis on the judiciary, especially with Clinton (2 SCOTUS justices, 19 appeals court judges, and 107 district judges confirmed during the two years Clinton had a Democratic Senate, all but SCOTUS and two appeals court nominees were voice voted too).

      Liked by 1 person

  46. star0garnet's avatar

    And Conway only manages to bag nine GOP votes. Only rare vote he got besides Johnson was Braun. Couldn’t even get the second-tier votes of Rounds, Grassley, Cornyn, Kennedy, McConnell, or Young. The party’s closed ranks even more ahead of the election.

    Liked by 2 people

  47. raylodato's avatar

    Only one remaining pre-Biden vacancy (MDAL) now.

    There are four remaining from 2021, with only one nominee (Kanter for the jinxed vacancy in SDCA), and another 7 from 2022, with 3 nominees.

    I guess the silver lining is that there’s nothing comparable to the CCA-9 vacancy that was open for 9 years.

    Also, why am I feeling there’s going to be a wave of announced retirements right after the election? It’s been pretty quiet the last few months.

    Liked by 3 people

      • star0garnet's avatar

        Biden will hopefully remove NC from that list. The likeliest for Harris to remove would be AK, very likely the district seats and maybe a replacement for Morgan Christen. She could end up with half the WV seats vacant (plus King), and I imagine a deal could be had with Capito and Justice. She’d certainly have enough seats in MO for a deal (starting with 4, rising potentially to 7), but who knows what Hawley’s breaking point would be. Maybe James Graves or Vence Smith are looking to retire. KY, AL, and ND seem like the longest shots, with KY and AL needing a sufficient number of vacancies, and ND requiring Ralph Erickson to go senior.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        I am still mad about Scott Colom. Senator Hyde-Smith said she would happily sit in the front row of a lynching & then blocked a Black man in his early 40’s that even her Republican colleague gave his ok for. Durbin should have used Colom to back up his pledge not to let race be the reason to block nominees.

        I am happy Kentucky is on the list. I would rather the seat remain vacant than Chad Meredith be in the seat. Thank God Dobbs came out the day it did to slam the brakes on that plan.

        Trump filled all of the North Dalota seats so barring something unexpected, Harris won’t get to fill any seats there either. Only the 8th has a chance because even though the judge is a Trump appointee, due to his ae & district court years of service, he is actually eligible for senior status already.

        We all know Tillis is throwing a hissy fit in North Carolina so I doubt those vacancies will be filled anytime soon. Ryan Park is well worth the fight, probably only second to Allision Riggs.

        Hopefully with 2 of the 3 seats in Alaska vacant, a President Harris can quickly work to fill those seats maybe with a package deal. West Virginia will likely have a vacancy or two with the ages of the judges on both districts in a Harris administration. Unfortunately, there will be two Republican senators at the time.

        I will stand by my prediction that Alabama will be the last of those states to get filled. Tuberville is completely unreasonable. Arkansas may be the state that takes the second longest to fill. I think Missouri will get filled in the next congress only because there are so many vacancies. I can see a package deal negotiated similar to the Texas nominees we have gotten.

        Like

  48. Zack's avatar

    Yea..I knew Brindisi was going to get the most heat but I was expecting it to be on gun control, his election lawsuit etc.
    I shouldn’t have been shocked that it was basically anti-trans bigotry but it’s all Republicans got and given that it sunk one nominee, they figure they may as well try again.
    Also appears they’re going to wait to announce new nominees, hope we don’t blow a chance to get someone confirmed to the 3rd Circuit so we can flip that Circuit.

    Liked by 3 people

  49. Zack's avatar

    @raylodato
    If Trump wins and Republicans take the Senate back, I fully most of the remaining George Sr/Reagan judges in active service on the Circuit courts to take senior status, as well for Alito/Thomas to step down from SCOTUS.
    If Harris wins but Republicans take the Senate, I suspect they and most other judges will stay put.
    Have to wait and see.

    Liked by 1 person

  50. Mike's avatar

    They probably would have had the votes to push through a circuit nominees cloture tomorrow as I’m guessing a lot of southern red state senators would probably head home before the storm.

    4 of the 5 absences today were Republican senators so they could have even invoked Manji.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to Frank Cancel reply