Sharad Desai – Nominee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

The brother of Ninth Circuit Judge Roopali Desai, Phoenix based attorney Sharad Desai is vying to become the first Indian American judge on the federal district court bench in Arizona.

Background

Born to an Indian immigrant family in Phoenix, Desai received a joint B.S. and B.A. from the University of Arizona in 2003 and then a J.D. from New York University School of Law in 2006. Desai then returned to Arizona to clerk for Arizona Supreme Court Justice Rebecca White Berch.

After his clerkship, Desai joined Osborn Maledon, P.A. in Phoenix. He became a Member with the firm in 2012. In 2015, he shifted to Honeywell International Inc., a business conglomerate working in aerospace and technology, among other areas, where he serves as Vice President and General Counsel.

History of the Seat

Desai has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, to a seat to be vacated on October 21, 2024, when Judge G. Murray Snow takes senior status.

Legal Experience

After his clerkship, Desai worked in litigation at Osborn Maledon, P.A. While at the firm, Desai represented a class of retired Arizona judges in a class action suit against a change in the calculations of pension benefit increases for judges. See Fields v. Elected Officials’ Retirement Plan, 320 P.3d 1160 (Ariz. 2014). Desai secured a victory for the class in trial court, which was affirmed by the Arizona Supreme Court. See id.

While at the firm, Desai was appointed by the Arizona District Court to represent a class of pretrial detainees in litigation by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office seeking to terminate consent agreements overseeing conditions in their jails. See Graves v. Arpaio, 48 F. Supp. 3d 1318 (D. Ariz. 2014). Desai maintained his representation of the class until he left the firm in 2015.

On the pro bono side, Desai represented a Nevada prisoner seeking recovery for costs from litigation challenging a disciplinary hearing against him. As part of his representation, Desai briefed and argued the appeal before the Ninth Circuit. See Jones v. McDaniel, 607 F. App’x 710 (9th Cir. 2015).

For the last nine years at Honeywell International Inc., Desai has served as a Counsel, advising various divisions of the company, and overseeing litigation in general. However, he has not appeared in court during this time. Nonetheless, Desai has supervised litigation, including in a $38 million product liability suit involving a Honeywell autopilot on an aircraft, which ended in a jury verdict in Honeywell’s favor after a two week trial. See Egbers v. Honeywell, Int’l, Cook County Circuit Ct. Case No. 06 L 6992 (Ill. 2016).

Overall Assessment

Perhaps more than any other Senator, Senator Kirsten Synema has been able to grease the wheels for nominees from her state. The three nominees to Arizona courts from the Biden Administration have each drawn more than 60 senators in support, a remarkable feat, given that only around 20% of the Administration’s judicial nominees have drawn that level of support.

While Desai is unlikely to get the same level of support, given the fact that his nomination will almost certainly be considered in the lame duck session, it is possible that Sinema will be able to work her magic a fourth time and ensure that Desai joins the bench in due course.

1,386 Comments

  1. Joe's avatar

    I will likely stop posting around or shortly after January 20. Frankly, it’s too depressing to think about and I’ll probably sink more of my time/energy into sports or something else.

    I may stop in occasionally if there’s something big like a SCOTUS vacancy or some package deal nominees for blue states, but otherwise it’ll be a break until we retake the senate or the white house.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Zack's avatar

    Behind the scenes, I believe folks like Sheldon Whitehouse and Mazie Hirono are furious about this “deal” but the progressive leaders.voters as a whole have shown they don’t care about the courts either, even if groups like Demand Justice do.
    Bernie dragging out his Senate campaign in 2016 and not calling out people in his orbit pushing for Jill Stein etc. among other things and Ralph Nadar in 2000 is proof of that.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Mike's avatar

    Oh and one more thing.

    While I am grateful that Dems will confirm about 235 judges please do not give them credit for barely surpassing the GOP number for 2 reasons.

    Republicans didn’t change the rules to 1. allow confirming circuit judges without home state senators support or 2. reduce the 30 hour debate time for district judges down to 2 until **2019**.

    So Dems needed those advantages for 2 extra years to match Republican competence.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Zack's avatar

    Yea, I’ll be joining others in taking a break once Trump takes office.
    Because in addition to the two to four Circuit court seats we gifted Republicans and the fifth one (I still don’t think Howard’s seat could have been filled) there is no way the remaining all of the remaining Reagan/George Sr/W judges who can take senior status are going to not do so this time around which means a chance to replace horrible judges with not horrible ones is gone for another 30-40 years.
    And the fact we lost four seats instead of the two or three I though we would lose (I didn’t see Casey’s loss coming until late October) means they will all get through.
    Not going to stick around to see anti-choice, anti-labor, anti-LGBT bigots be put on the courts.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Squish's avatar

    I will be quite interested to see who ends up in Judge Stranch’s seat if she doesn’t rescind her intent to take senior status. Johnathan Skrmetti comes to mind. Or perhaps a very conservative district court judge like Judge Vaden on the Court of International Trade or Judge Crytzker in Knoxville. For the First Circuit, my money is on Patrick Strawbridge or Judge Walker in Maine.

    Like

  9. Larry Simmers's avatar

    But why did the Senate Democrats run out of time and then get stuck with a bad deal? Was it because Feinstein and Fetterman were ill? No, precious time was eaten up by the Menendez trial. Put some of the blame where it belongs. Manchin didn’t help until the end but the votes were still there until that trial.

    Like

  10. tsb1991's avatar

    Both Kim and Schiff are joining the Senate on Monday it sounds like, not sure what precedent there is for updating organizing resolutions in a lame duck Senate where control switch is imminent, but I’d think they’d get some committee assignments so that they’re doing something the next few weeks. I wonder if Harris will be around to swear them in or if Murray will do it, it’ll pain me to watch Harris preside over the new Congress on January 3 so I won’t watch it lol

    Hwang and Murphy also received their commissions on the 6th. Now that we’re in December Bulsara will be eligible to take the bench on the 19th, the only remaining judges with future start dates look to be Kidd and DuBose.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Joe's avatar

    While I’m very glad Kidd was able to be confirmed, I don’t think it actually changes the complexion of the court much at all because Charles Wilson was also a solid liberal judge. The main benefit is that Kidd is nearly 30 years younger.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Gavi's avatar

    This is a bit in the weeds, but as many longtime users of this blog know, I love the minutia of things. Does Ryan or anyone have any idea why Gov. Newsom needed to make an appointment for Schiff to take his Senate seat early? I thought that once the election was certified, Schiff could take his seat, since he won both the regular election for the Jan 3 seat and for the special election to complete Feinstein’s term. Governors don’t usually have to *appoint* an election winner, they just have to certify the win. This is an appointment for a seat that was won.

    Compare this to Kim in NJ, which is different because otherwise Kim wouldn’t get to the Senate until Jan 3, so an early appointment was necessary.  

    Of course, this means that Dems no longer have an outright majority in SJC, which is a different matter.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Gavi's avatar

        Ryan, did you read my comment? Yes, I know that there were two elections:

        “I thought that once the election was certified, Schiff could take his seat, since he won both the regular election for the Jan 3 seat and for the special election to complete Feinstein’s term. Governors don’t usually have to *appoint* an election winner, they just have to certify the win. This is an appointment for a seat that was won.”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Thomas's avatar

        It’s increasingly strange what some people posted here especially in the recent weeks, because they are frustrated about the ‘deal’ and the result of the recent elections. I have these feelings, too, but not in that kind.

        First, that the elected senator will replace the appointed one is no partisan matter, that Laphonza Butler was in the Senate Judiciary Committee because no other Democratic Senator was obviously keen to replace Feinstein and no the majority might be gone in the last two weeks has not to be blamed to current laws and they should not be changed due to the unique confirmation of two district judges.

        Second, although many folks here blaming Schumer to be a weak liar for the deal, and the conviction, that the four circuit judges have enough votes to be confirmed, eventually earlier that year, convincing or blackmailing Sinema and Manchin (under the assumption that they are the only nays), or everything would have been better if they would have been in session more frequently, finally, lack to time has not derailed a judicial nomination so far.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Thomas

        Two separate issues so I’ll reply to each.

        I’m not saying California should change its laws today to change the Schiff replacing Butler situation. I’m saying California should change its laws to help Democrats in the future period. Just like Republicans change laws in states they control. Why should only 20% (Or whatever the number is now) be all it takes to trigger an expensive recall election for a California governor (Who almost surely will be a Democrat)? Worst of all it’s actually worked once in my lifetime & lead to a two term Republican governor that wouldn’t have won a regularly scheduled general election.

        When Republicans have power they use it. Kentucky elected a Democrat governor so what did the Republican legislature do? They changed the law so the governor can only appoint a US senator with a Senator from the same Party. A Democrat just won the governor’s race in North Carolina so what did the Republican legislature do? On their way out the door they are trying to change laws on appointments from the governor. So yes, I absolutely am in favor of Democrats playing hardball in blue states & change laws to favor them. As a matter of fact, I’m unapologetically in favor of it.

        On to the second item. I have said it before so I’ll just give a shorten version. It’s simple math. There were two Republican senators out for over a month’s time earlier this year. Schumer should have teed up Mangi, Campbell & Lipez (Park want voted out of the SJC yet) back then. And if your response is there wouldn’t have been enough votes to confirm them even with just 47 Republicans present, then they should have been replaced back then. But either way we shouldn’t have four pending circuit court nominees left for this crap of a “deal” to even be an afterthought.

        Like

    • Rick's avatar

      We still would have had those 4 nominees confirmed if Sinema would have supported them.

      I think it was back in March when Sinema announced she wouldn’t run again. And I believe she became bitter and took it out on Democrats. I bet she didn’t even vote for Gallego, she probably wrote in herself.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I truly wished it was Sinema & not Butler being replaced early this week. Had Dems thought about it earlier, they could have bribed her to resign once Gallego was certified. I’m sure she would have taken any job offer to leave today. And it could have been seen as doing what’s best for Arizona so he would have seniority over the other new senators coming in on January 3rd.

        Like

  18. tsb1991's avatar

    Schumer did file cloture on two NLRB nominees. The only other realistic judicial nominees would have been the local DC judges but any commissioners getting confirmed before Trump takes office are also pretty important too. Only other question this week is if we get a new organizing resolution for Schiff and Kim so that they have an 11-10 SJC present for Thursday.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      The link is not opening but I get the jist of it from what you wrote. And they should come out against it. You don’t pass a massive bill to add additional judgeships when you know which president will get to fill the seats. You do it when neither side knows. I think they should amend it to shift the years to start in 2029 then pass it.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      Good news. I always want Democrat appointees to get their commission in order of age just to maximize the chance at Democrat chief judges later down the line. Brindisi was confirmed first but since Coombe is older & they received their commissions the same day, she will have seniority. Unfortunately this didn’t happen with the CDCA but that court is so large, Hwang probably will never be chief judge anyway. The EDPA still have a chance to get it right as long as Catherine Henry is more senior.

      Like

  24. Mike's avatar

    Just wow, full day in session and the entirety of Senate Dems workload was 2 confirmation votes. I guess those 8 DC superior court nominees just wasted their time applying for those vacancies.

    Dems 100% gave up on those circuit seats and absolutely had the time to confirm them.

    I keep waiting for my mind to accept the senate capitulation, tbh, just like I’ve been trying to with another Trump term but I just can’t do it, my mind can’t compute it.

    Even if 100% of the blame is on Joe Manchin and Kristen Simena, like really they will end their terms in congress screwing over their collages and nobody is giving them hell about that?

    Liked by 1 person

  25. tsb1991's avatar

    Pennell also received her commission yesterday. Waiting for wrap-up but Schumer briefly came up, signed a paper and sent it to the desk, and then left, so we may be getting a cloture motion for Thursday? If so it’s probably a DC judge at this point.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Mike's avatar

    If they confirm Wise, Cheeks and Murillo that’ll give Biden 235 judicial confirmations.

    What a weird coincidence Dems have done enough work to only, precisely, do enough work to pass Trumps record by 1 and call it a day.

    I think that’s all Dems in the senate wanted, why fight when you can get the pointless bragging rights while Trump gets 4 more years to redo the courts starting with Bidens 4 vacant circuit seats.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ryan J's avatar

      It’s so meaningless. As I’ve said before, I’d care a bit more about the bragging rights of beating Trump’s record if the next president were anyone other than Biden or Trump (solely because of how much I hate Trump).

      Yes, I care about beating records if I hate the record-holder enough. It bugs me that a lot of these records are held by racists. Until she started missing a ton of votes in early 2023, I had hoped that Dianne Feinstein would serve in the Senate until age 101 in order to surpass Strom Thurmond’s record of 100 (Thurmond was a racist and sexual harasser). I had also hoped for Ruth Bader Ginsburg to remain on SCOTUS until age 91 to surpass the 1st and 3rd oldest justices (Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Roger B. Taney), both of whom were extremely racist. And it irks me so much that Trump is set to become the oldest president if he serves out his full term. I hope a future president who is against racism and misogyny serves to 83 to pry that record away from Trump.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      Despite not filling the circuit court vacancies, Senate Democrats were pretty effective in filling district court vacancies these past 4 weeks. They have actually confirmed more judges in Biden’s lame duck than the Senate GOP did during Trump’s lame duck (Trump and Biden each got 1 circuit judge during the lame duck, while Biden got 18 district judges to Trump’s 12).

      Manchin and Sinema were also surprisingly cooperative, voting in favor of many nominees and skipping votes on nominees that they opposed. The number of vacancies that Trump will inherit in 2025 is similar to the number that Biden inherited in 2021, and in both 2021 and 2025, the vast majority of those vacancies are due to blue slips (which as a practical matter, ending blue slips needed to be done by 2023 in order to be useful).

      Liked by 1 person

    • shawnee68's avatar

      If I remember correctly Biden got at least 2 circuit judges from Trump.

      The 1st circuit and the 9th circuit had nominees who were outstanding .

      I think the 9th Circuit nominee was withdrawn without a replacement.

      So, 2 extra judges won’t make that much of a difference . This is especially true on the 1st Circuit. All the active judges were chosen by Dem president’s if I remember correctly .

      Oh, and incidentally , the judge bill in House will not become law this year nor in the next congress.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        There were two circuit court vacancies when Biden took office. The 1st – PR & 7th – IL. But that still pales in comparison to the number left vacant for Trump when he took over after Obama & even compared to this crappy “deal” where he will have anywhere from 3-5 vacancies. There’s no way to justify or defend this “deal'”. There just isn’t.

        Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        What happened under Obama isn’t what’s happening here.

        It’s highly likely that the 4th and 6th vacancies will be rescinded.

        That’s not a lot left in terms of circuit vacancies as percentage of the judiciary.

        I think we are better off with a split Trump term than a consecutive one.

        Trump is already a lame duck president and has to start from ground zero.

        When the midterms come that has to have an effect on Democratic prospects of slowing the rightward shift of judiciary.

        Heck, even GWB gave away 3 circuit judges for 2nd, 4th and 6th and only one GOP Senator complained about it openly.That was reserved for the 4th Circuit pick Roger Gregory.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        You are absolutely correct. That isn’t what is happening here. What happened under GW Bush to Obama & Obama to Trump was the senate majority was in the hands of the other Party. That’s understandable to have vacancies left unfilled.

        What is happening here is the Democrats have a 51-49 advantage most of the year & a 51-47 majority for a couple of months. And during the lame duck this Democrat majority is four for four in leaving town on a Thursday by 4pm instead of using every waking minute to confirm every last Biden nominee. Now here we are handing Trump up to FIVE circuit court vacancies. I couldn’t agree with you more. This isn’t the same thing as the examples you mentioned.

        Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        I think it’s bit more complicated than that. Yes, hindsight is 20/20 so did you know in advance who was going to present when these votes would have taken place ?

        I made the mistake of underestimating the extent of opposition to the Mangi nomination

        Sometimes when the writing is on the wall we overlook it.

        When Arianna Freeman failed to get a majority vote so many on here pissed in their pants/panties.

        I guess if you want to take a couple of missed confirmations to your grave. So be it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        It’s actually not complicated at all. The votes are recorded. We can go back & look at which Democrats missed which votes for the months Vance & Rounds were out. This isn’t hindsight. This blog, just like the senate votes is also recorded. You can easily go back & see many of us saying then what we are saying now.

        But don’t worry. Republicans will be in charge soon. And I can assure you for the next 4 years you won’t have to worry about hearing any complaints from anybody about nominees not getting confirmed because the senate is sticking to a short work week or because of any “deals”.

        Like

  27. tsb1991's avatar

    Cloture was filed on a Nuclear Energy Board nominee, so at least it’s someone who would stick around after Biden leaves office. Schumer did pass an updated organizing resolution during wrap-up, but I can’t find the text of it anywhere. Best case is that Schiff and Kim inherited their predecessor’s committee assignments for the next two weeks, which would place Schiff on the SJC and we’d be good to vote out the last two nominees. At least they get to enjoy the perks of the majority for weeks, which is essentially just presiding over the Senate at this point?

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Mike S.'s avatar

    I am not supportive of the idea of Biden threatening a veto for the Judges Act. We all know the courts are a partisan issue for each party (Republicans especially). However, the Judges Act spreads out the new judgeships over a 10 year period – we desperately need new judges. I hope they can find a reasonable solution, but not holding my breath here.

    I think Schumer bungled the remaining appellate court nominees. I would have held a cloture vote for Campbell on the 6th Circ. prior to the election (you had two missing Republican senators, they could have made it happen). She is also pro-labor, which has united Dems in the past. I also would have filed cloture on Lipez at the same time they did for all the district court nominees post election. Considering Trump will need Collins in the next Senate session, Republicans may be more willing to pay heed to her and nominate a moderate conservative for that seat. Also, its the 1st Circ., so not gonna be a huge impact either way.

    I am also hopeful the judges on the 4th & 6th Circ. rescind their senior status announcements in January.

    One thing to celebrate, probably more Dem appointed district court judges now at any point in the last 25 years!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Gavi's avatar

      “I am not supportive of the idea of Biden threatening a veto for the Judges Act.”

      If what I said yesterday wasn’t clear, I am very very supportive and (pleasantly surprised at some strategic thinking from Biden’s WH. Hey, better late than never, huh?) of the WH coming out against this. The House had ample opportunity to pass this bill before the elections when everything was an unknown. If I remembered correctly, you were so bullish on Senate Dems retaining control — that turned out to be very wrong — maybe that’s why the House didn’t act on it?

      “Considering Trump will need Collins in the next Senate session”

      What are you talking about??? Trump and his Republicans will have a Collins- and Murkowski-proof senate majority. Heck, a couple more Republicans can either defect or be absent and they’ll still have a majority. The only reason I can see Trump’s people being forced to work with Collins on filling this seat is probably because there aren’t very many super-MAGA sycophants in Maine, so they might rely on her. But I’ve already posted about that one potential pick for the First Circuit, Trump’s own former lawyer. Collins will be lucky to not get the Sen. Kennedy treatment from the first admin.

      “I am also hopeful the judges on the 4th & 6th Circ. rescind their senior status announcements in January.”

      As I’ve posted many times, I don’t share this hopefulness, but it does seem to be the consensus. I hope I’m wrong, but I’ve learned my lesson to never rely on Dems using the power they have when they have it. Now add all the warnings and threats that Senate Republicans have been sending to them.

      “One thing to celebrate, probably more Dem appointed district court judges now at any point in the last 25 years!”

      I don’t begrudge folks taking victory laps or finding something to celebrate no matter how crappy everything else is. But just remember, all these trial judges can easily be overruled by MAGA courts above them. Yes, they can have the last say on the vast majority of the cases on their docket, but those cases are of little major political valence. Everything remotely political will be appealed.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Frank's avatar

        I don’t think that either of the 4th/6th judges will revoke their senior status. If they do, I suspect that the Republicans will seek retribution however they can, as Mitch has already hinted at. Democrats will cheer about the record for about a minute and then forget all about it, and besides complain after an occasional SCOTUS decision will do nothing about judges for at least the next four years, as Trump confirms FedSoc hack after FedSoc hack.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Gavi's avatar

        @Frank Not for nothing, after 4 years of being mostly wrong on everything, you’ve been disturbingly right on almost everything these 5 months haha.
        Do you remember when Dequan used to ask us when we thought the deadline would be for new vacancies? I maintained September 2023. Everyone thought I was being my usual pessimistic self. Well, turns out I was only half right/wrong.
        It was always going to be risky announcing senior status so late in the game in today’s climate, even if that’s as early as January. So I do partly blame Stranch and Wynn for sitting on their announcement for so long.
        Even so, January of a presidential election year is more than enough time for a competent WH and Senate majority to fill appeals court vacancies.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I completely underestimated senate Democrats laziness & senate Democrats leadership ineptness. When I first asked what was the drop dead deadline for a non blue state district court judge to announce they were stepping down & still get the seat filled, in no way could I envision the senate working the same or even LESS days than scheduled. I know they left a day early for the election recess. For some reason I think they left a day early for an earlier recess as well. I know of no scheduled off days the senate worked in 2024. That’s pure laziness.

        And of course when you throw in the colossally horrible “deal”, that put the answer to my question closer to what Gavi said. I am truly disgusted to be honest. I don’t mind losing because the other team was just better. But it’s a hard pill to swallow when we lose because of laziness & being inept. We won’t have to worry about either of those two things for the next four years. I just wish it was my side but clearly that’s not the case.

        Liked by 1 person

  31. Zack's avatar

    Judges are there for life.

    McConnell and others can make threats all they want, in the end if some judges want to revoke senior status, they can do so.

    The dropping of the ball on Mangi will anger me more then anything else.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      The only remaining possibilities are Noel Wise & if the SJC votes then to the floor tomorrow, Benjamin Cheeks & Serena Murillo.

      Rebecca Kanter never had her hearing & it’s criminal since she was announced in January. Detra Shaw-Wilder & Danna Jackson never got blue slips returned. I absolutely would have included that in part of the “deal”. Tali Weinstein’s nomination hasn’t even been officially sent to the senate yet. And unless Senator Ossoff changes his mind, Sarah Netburn won’t even be voted out of the SJC.

      What a disaster of a lame duck.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Both Cheeks & Murillo should be fired to the floor tomorrow from the SJC if all goes well. I am fully confident they both will be confirmed. I haven’t heard anything about Ossoff changing his mind about Netburn so I doubt her.

        Neither Weinstein nor the Guam nominations were sent to the senate. Even if Biden sent them tonight, there is not enough time to confirm them without unanimous consent to waive all rules (Which won’t happen).

        Like

  35. Gavi's avatar

    In an alternate world where Dems were strategic, I’d say that Weinstein’s nomination wasn’t meant to be seriously considered this year and that it’s a play by Schumer and Gilibrand to use as a bargaining chip for future NY district court vacancies. As in, the 2 senators would play ball for those other nominees if Trump renominates Weinstein. (For non-NYC folks, Weinstein ran in a primary against Trump nemesis Bragg. Bragg had to tack to the extreme left to defeat her well funded campaign, especially by campaigning on prosecuting Trump, which he did. Whereas Weinstein just said that no one is above the law.) After all, Weinstein wasn’t even sent to the Senate!

    For as long as I can tell, an incoming president has always renominated some judicial candidates from the previous/other party president, especially when bargaining with the home state senators. I don’t expect this to happen next year, but if it does, I’d expect Weinstein to be in such a bargain.

    Alas, that world might as well be in another universe because Dems don’t think so deeply on judges and these 2 NY senators give it away for free.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      Oh thank God I kept reading. I almost thought Gavi was drinking the everything is rosy juice for a minute there until I read his last paragraph… Haaaaa

      As he said that would be a great strategy for a competent Democrat senate leadership. Since we don’t have that, I would bet on Weinstein working at a Seven-Eleven before being a federal judge… Lol

      Liked by 1 person

    • Joe's avatar

      I agree Gavi, they should have at least tried.

      Or, they could have held a hearing last week for her (and Kanter) and used her pending nomination to either 1) back out of the circuit court deal or 2) get the GOP to voice vote her out of committee. There wasn’t anything to lose really, except maybe an hour of committee time.

      Liked by 2 people

  36. aangren's avatar

    Give it to me straight what are the chances those liberal judges rescind senior status? is frank right or just his usual republican bs? what odds do you give that happening? or will mitch mcconnell threats actually work?

    Good to see wise being confirmed, alot of biden policies get blocked by district court judges appointed by trump even if these judges can slow trump vicious policies down for a while its still a win.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      Stranch and Wynn are more difficult to predict as they only announced in January. Some judges announced upon confirmation of a successor but got tired of waiting and took senior status unconditionally. Cogburn rescinding was pretty predictable since he had been waiting almost 3 years but had not given up/taken senior status unconditionally.

      I predict that Stranch/Wynn will do one of two things: either rescind or go senior unconditionally. A less likely third possibility exists where Stranch and Wynn agree to let Trump pick their successor on the condition that the successor isn’t a far right hack.

      Liked by 1 person

  37. Humanfault's avatar

    Given Trump’s going to have free reign on judicial appointments for the next four years we’re going to have to hope Clarence Thomas has a big enough ego that he wants to go for being the longest serving Justice in history. Otherwise, it looks like it’ll be pretty likely Trump appoints a straight up majority of the Court.

    Liked by 2 people

  40. Mike's avatar

    Oh and on that final middle finger from Manchin and Sinema…this is how Reps do hard votes.

    “Republicans had nearly perfect attendance on the roll call, with only Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), who has strong union ties, not voting.”

    I am genuinely impressed and worried at how well the senate GOP will go about pushing through Trump’s agenda.

    Liked by 1 person

    • raylodato's avatar

      By the end of this Congress, there should be only 1 vacancy left in the state (SDCA), although there are 6 judges in CDCA who were born in the 1940s and could go senior at any time. My guess is that Schiff and Padilla will support state judges without a significant ideological profile or controversial decisions and that Trump will go along.

      CCA-9 is another story. That’s where Trump will put his energies in trying to get FedSoc nominees through. With 53 votes, it’ll be hard to stop him.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Mitch's avatar

        If you’re correct, than some nominees who fell by the wayside in 2020 could reemerge. I can see Michelle Pettit being renominated for the vacancy in the SDCA. She’s currently a Magistrate Judge.

        Pettit generated no controversy in 2020 and Democrats didn’t have any problem with her. But California’s Senators withdrew their support to protest the last-minute nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

        Liked by 1 person

  46. star0garnet's avatar

    Unless the GOP passes a modified judges act next year, it will be interesting to see if Trump beats out W’s second term for the fewest district appointees in the modern era. Over the past dozen terms (so, since Carter), we’ve seen 202, 129, 161, 148, 169, 136, 168, 93, 141, 127, 174, and probably 187.

    On the district level:

    Trump looks set to enter office with 36 existing vacancies: 34 with GOP senators, 2 with Dem senators

    And four announced vacancies: 2 R, 1 D, 1 split

    Breaking down senior-qualified judges by appointer and when they qualify:

    45 qualified before Biden’s term:
    29 GOP appointees: 17 GOP senators, 9 D, 3 split
    16 Dem appointees: 11 R, 4 D, 1 S

    42 qualified during Biden’s term:
    18 GOP appointees: 11 R, 5 D, 1 S, 1 PR
    24 Dem appointees: 10 R, 9 D, 5 S

    45 will qualify in the first half of Trump’s term:
    13 GOP appointees: 7 R, 6 D
    32 Dem appointees: 10 R, 19 D, 2 S, 1 PR

    61 will qualify in the second half of Trump’s term:
    22 GOP appointees: 14 R, 5 D, 3 S
    39 Dem appointees: 14 R, 19 D, 2 S, 4 DC

    While it would take a similar straight as Dems had in 2006 to take the senate in 2026, even without that, there just aren’t that many senior-eligible possibilities, let alone likely ones. There will certainly be a handful of elevations and early retirements/scandals, of course, but even that plus voiding blue slips would probably only get Trump a little over 100.

    Liked by 1 person

      • star0garnet's avatar

        Sure, there will be a handful, but that will pale in comparison to the Obama appointees who just want to retire. Of the ~94 set to be senior-eligible, 45 had Dem blue slips, 5 had no blue slips, 31 had split blue slips, 13 had GOP blue slips; only six were confirmed by a GOP majority. I think there are roughly 15 centrists and 5 conservatives among them. And hell, centrist lawyers that I chat with seem among the most turned off by FedSoc types.

        Liked by 1 person

  48. Mike S.'s avatar

    I certainly identify myself as more of a moderate Dem, and I do not look forward to the majority of the far right Trump judiciary appointments of the next four years. I think they will be the wrong choice for the country. I also hope Wynn and Stranch rescind their senior status announcements, which were contingent upon the appointment of their successor (let’s not forget, they have lifetime tenure – the seat is their seat to give up)

    That said, if the blue slip is respected, I will certainly have no problem with mainstream conservative nominees being nominated in the blue states. That’s the reason I continue to support the Judges Act, regardless of who was elected president. Listen, we all know Republican’s do not play fair with the judiciary… but we still desperately need more district court judges. That didn’t change just because Trump won.

    I know some people make it their MO to take shots at folks on this board (I thought it very odd Gavi remembered a post I made last month… for which I acknowledged I was wrong on my bullish sentiment), but I never like to make things personal. I know it is difficult for some folks to look at things objectively… but let’s not forget the greater good.

    There are a lot of folks out there that would benefit from more district court judges. Especially if you have a civil case in a court that is understaffed, it could take years to resolve. A lot of folks do not live in that world, and as someone working in the legal field, I know the real world implications of that.

    I am hopeful that the two nominees to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. (equivalent to the D.C. Supreme Court) will get their nominees confirmed next week, and I am still hopeful they can get the nominees to the NLRB confirmed (a recent Bloomberg article had a good write up on the Rep pick, he seemed like a solid choice). It is going to be a long four years…

    Liked by 1 person

    • Gavi's avatar

      Like you said don’t take it personally, because I usually remember what people say on here, the more ridiculous and far-fetched, the more it stays with me. But I get it, it’s always tough for us to be confronted with our own errors, big and small.

      Anyway, I reminded you of your bullish prediction not to just throw it in your face but to make the point that there’s a reason the House is only just getting to the bill now. Had your prediction come through, the Republican House would have never bothered to pass it and a Senate Republicans would’ve likely filibustered it next year. What happens then to those folks waiting disposition of their civil cases?

      I don’t ever pretend that somehow politics has nothing to do with judges. Nothing could be further from the truth. Politics, not concern for litigants in civil cases, is what stopped the House from passing this bill before the outcome of the election is known. Politics, not high-minded notions of greater good, is what caused this bill to be passed now that we know who’ll be making those nominations. I am also in this world so let’s not kid ourselves about litigants. I’d venture that not even 0.00000000001% of them know anything about the JUDGES Act or are able to articulate any expectation of congressional relief. Not to mention, for crying out loud, that many of the states already have longstanding vacancies that their senators refused to work with Biden to fill. So far, I have not heard of any senator’s office being flooded with visits, letters, or calls about them not returning their blue slips.

      Finally, for the record, I won’t be able to remember a thing anyone posts on here after January 20. Hang tight.

      Liked by 1 person

  50. Mike's avatar

    I really can’t believe Ted Cruz will get 6 open district court seats to gift Trump.

    He really did come out of this as the biggest winner out of all GOP senators.

    Even Marcos deal looks pretty sensible and bipartiaston compared to Cruz.

    Liked by 2 people

      • Gavi's avatar

        Whereas the Schumer’s circuit court seats giveaway will go down in history as the worst judicial “deal” between the parties in the Senate, Biden’s Ramirez deal with the TX senators will go down in history as the worst deal between a WH and home state senators, in the post- segregationists, filibuster, CCA blue slip world.

        Yes, Joe, we all remember what you think of the Irma Ramirez nomination, and you’re free to keep your opinion. We are also free to hold the opinion that an elderly centrist (at best) for a couple district court nominees, leaving triple that number open isn’t a very proud moment for the WH, but a bank heist for Cruz and Cornyn. Cornyn can’t even negotiate with his fellow senators to get the committee chairmanship he wants (not to mention the top job in the Senate). But no worries, he out-negotiated the WH on TX vacancies. And now some folks want to give him and Cruz and Trump a lot more?

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a comment