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. Zack's avatar

    @Gavi,

    I think there were several reasons
    1) The WH/Democrats didn’t want to cave into the ugly smear campaign against Mangi’s faith that was done here, not just because of fear of losing Muslim/Asian voters but because they (rightfully) didn’t want to cave to bigotry.

    2) I think they thought at some point Rosen/Masto (and others they were covering for IMO) would cave and give them the votes they needed.

    3) To go along with what you said, while I can’t blame Mangi for not wanting to give into the smear campaign he faced, it was clear the writing was on the wall months ago, especially once the link to the prison reform group came out and writing a letter explaining how it was all BS wasn’t going to change that.
    He should have withdrawn but he didn’t.

    In the same breath, even if he had withdrawn, given the absurd length of time it took to come up with a nominee for this seat in the first place, no assurances we would have gotten another one.

    What a self inflicted wound here.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Mitch's avatar

    The Federal Court of Eastern Missouri is a 9-judge court with four vacancies. I’m predicting that the first nominee from Trump will me Magistrate Judge John Bodenhausen. It’s not because Bodenhausen is far right, but because he already works in the same building and the Court has such a huge backload of cases. I think the more ideological nominees there will come later,

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Zack's avatar

    @Frank,

    Also no reason Ryan Park or a couple of other folks couldn’t have been nominated much earlier, thus making it harder for their nominations to fail.
    Once Ron Klain left, judicial nominations suffered IMO.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Zack's avatar

    The other thing with some of the judicial vacancies we have now and likely upcoming ones is that IF Harris had won, Republicans would have been perfectly okay with letting them pile up like they did with Clinton and Obama.
    This blog might have had write ups on nominees we liked but most of them would never get confirmed with Republicans controlling the Senate unless they were to district court seats.
    No way Republicans would let Harris have any Circuit court seats, especially ones where they would result in flips.

    Liked by 2 people

    • star0garnet's avatar

      While I believe the GOP would have confirmed minimal Harris judicial nominees, I would argue that would be new territory for the GOP, albeit squarely along their historical, nihilist trajectory. Vacancies that opened in the first halves of Clinton and Obama’s second terms were largely filled, though in Obama’s case they only had blue slips for the first half of the term (after the nuclear option). I would note, however, that if Harris had won, Casey would have as well, and Brown’s odds would be about 50-50. So any nominee that could get Graham’s vote in committee would be confirmed if the administration could negotiate floor votes with Thune.

      Looking back on historical Article III vacancies:

      Clinton’s second term (105th-106th congresses):
      The 105th (55-45 R) confirmed 101, filling 68 of 89 (76%) pre-existing vacancies and 33 of 73 (45%) new vacancies.
      The 106th (55-45 R) confirmed 73, filling 11 of 21 (52%) that pre-dated the 105th, 30 of 40 (75%) that opened in the 105th, and 32 of 95 (34%) new vacancies.
      They handed W 84 vacancies: 10 that pre-dated the 105th, 10 (of 73; 14%) that opened in the 105th, 63 (of 95; 66%) that opened in the 106th, and 1 that opened in the 107th.

      Obama’s second term (113th-114th):
      The 113th (55-45 D) confirmed 134, filling 74 of 80 (93%) pre-existing vacancies and 60 of 97 (62%) new vacancies.
      The 114th (54-46 R) confirmed 22, filling 2 of 6 (33%) that pre-dated the 113th, 11 of 37 (30%) that opened in the 113th, and 9 of 86 (10%) new vacancies.
      They handed Trump 108 vacancies: 4 that pre-dated the 113th, 26 (of 97; 27%) that opened in the 113th, 77 (of 86; 90%) that opened in the 114th, and 1 that opened in the 115th.

      Depending on Stranch, Christensen, and new announcements, we’re currently looking to hand Trump 40 existing vacancies: 1 from the 116th, 8 (of 134; 6%) from the 117th, 30 (of 91; 33%) from the 118th, and 1 (of 2) from the 119th. Biden filled 45 of 46 (98%) that he started with.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Zack's avatar

    Anyone else noting the irony that due to what is going on with the Republicans in the House, many Senators are likely going to have to stay longer then they intended anyway?
    Almost as if we could have gotten Park and the other circuit court nominees through at the end.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Joe's avatar

    This absolutely won’t happen, but if Republicans stay determined to shut down the government today why shouldn’t Schumer file cloture on Lipez or Campbell while negotiations continue? If nothing else it puts pressure on Republicans to either stay in town or go home and he sneaks another confirmation through?

    Liked by 2 people

  9. tsb1991's avatar

    I mean, I’d think that confirming an appeals court nominee or two would be a good retaliation at Republicans for shutting down the government at Christmas time when everyone wanted to be out of town by now.

    The two district court nominees are set to be confirmed today. Schumer will also probably file cloture on the Social Security bill, which would ripen on Sunday, setting up passage for Monday. If you’re going to stay through the holidays at least file cloture on other nominees…

    Liked by 2 people

  10. tsb1991's avatar

    After Murillo is confirmed today the CDCA will be fully staffed. Not sure how long that will last with a Reagan, Clinton, and the remaining four GWB appointees all eligible to go senior, but being able to replace several GWB appointees this year should help with the makeup of the court.

    Bulsara is also eligible to take the bench on the EDNY as of yesterday.

    Liked by 1 person

    • dawsont825's avatar

      I really hope Schiff has some anti-Trump left in him. I saw him say something along the lines of “now that I’m a senator, I need to reach out to the other side and other parts of California to make sure everyone is represented” which is just gobbledy gook for “I need to be more moderate than I was as a member of the House”

      He can cosponsor a bunch of bipartisan bills; I couldn’t care less. But he better not roll over and let Trump pick FedSoc hacks for whatever CDCA vacancies arise over the next 4 years. If Trump agrees to a centrist judge who is in active service as a magistrate or on the superior court in CA?? Absolutely

      But he’s in a safe senate seat now and can be in that seat for the next 18 years. Obstruct and keep those seats open for the next Dem president.

      If Hawley, Sullivan, Tuberville, Cotton, and others can hold open seats for all 4 years and not even make honest, good-faith attempts to fill those seats…So can we.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. dawsont825's avatar

    I know this forum/blog isn’t shutting down, but it feels like the end around here. For the next 4 years, Trump, Thune and their gaggle of merry idiots are going to be ramming through judges and there really is nothing the Dems can do to stop it. The only saving grace is that they have the House and they can at least attempt to pass legislation which would make Thune think twice about scheduling a judge or two when he may have to keep the floor open to amendments and other various things.

    Reflecting on Biden’s 4 years is a mixed bag. While he has been the best Dem president on judges, that is an extremely low bar. He nominated numerous A++ judges to circuit court and district court seats (Abudu, Garcia, Heytens, Desai, Nathan, Ho etc.,) and had a bunch of duds/career prosecutors (Reardon, Childs, Ramirez, Chung) so overall…. he gets a B- for the work he did in stopping the judiciary from getting any worse.

    It’s easy to look back at the bullshit deal…,er “agreement” between Thune and Schumer, and it was undoubtably a bad deal. With that said, the totality of the work Biden, Schumer, & Durbin did over the past few years has been a pleasure to witness and take part in vigorous debate here.

    On a more personal note, I have fond memories of this platform because this blog kept me entertained and informed while I was still in college. There were way too many instances of me sitting in a boring lecture and instead of following along with the professional yapper….er, professor, I was here on this blog refreshing the page constantly to stay in the loop. Spending long hours in the library both doing homework and cracking jokes with Dequan about Durbin doing lines in his office after getting a few blue slips returned from GOP senators lol. While I may have graduated and am living in the real-world with real-world implications, it has been a helluva pleasure to discuss niche topics such as the judiciary with you fine folks.

    A lot of us are going to be on here less (for obvious reasons), and I hope you all take care of yourselves. I won’t completely leave this blog, but I won’t be tuning in to watch FedSoc hack after FedSoc hack be confirmed, turning former moderate conservative district courts turned into breeding grounds for FedSoc hackery (looking hard at you Missouri and Alaska). But if the Dems get their shit together eventually take back the house in 2026, I’ll be back with some semblance of hope. And in 2028, who knows what’ll happen? Trump will be off the ballot and the rest of his little minions will have to run on his policies (and we’ve seen how well that’s gone in the past)

    Hopefully Alito and Thomas are both selfish assholes and stay on the court for the next 4 years, and that the only thing slowing Trump’s judicial nominations is the number of red-state vacancies. I have 0 faith in Dem senators’ ability to obstruct Trump. I’ve resigned myself to numerous bipartisan packages in states Trump has no business getting deals in (Illinois, New York, Michigan).

    I am looking forward to seeing how Obama and Biden appointed judges block and slow down Trump over the next 4 years. It’ll be fun to the 1st and 9th circuits constantly in the news cycle for upholding injunctions against the Trump administration. While SCOTUS will undoubtably lift any injunction faster than they did for Biden, any attempt to slow him down will be good for the country. Hopefully the lawfare strategy in WDWA, DMA, NDCA, DNJ, MDPA, SDCA, and DNV are successful.

    Here’s to hoping that by 2028, there are new Dem senators in Maine, Wisconsin, Ohio (plz God), and North Carolina). By this time in 2029, it would be great to see a Pres. Ossoff/Pres. Newsome/Pres. Walz/or whoever else is prominent then… along with SJC Whitehouse ready to go on day 1. Until then folks, take care of yourselves and get ready to fight in any way you can. 🙏 

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      @dawsont825

      It has been an absolute pleasure keeping you entertained & cracking jokes with you over the past 4 years. I can’t remember where I was when I first read the Durbin doing lines in the bathroom off of blue slips turned in joke, but I do remember busting out laughing wherever I was at so thank you for that… Haaaaa

      I am going to stay on the blog as much under Trump as I was under Boden, albeit it won’t be as much fun. I completely get it why others choose to shut it off. I hope you all decide to drop by from time-to-time over the next 4 years & see me & (Fill in the blank) going back & fourth over Democrats rolling over… Lol

      Liked by 1 person

      • Mike's avatar

        Glad this place isn’t shutting down but I think it will quiet down a bit. I’m shocked I found you all before finding a judicially minded group on reddit but it’s been a fun, infuriating and informative few years.

        I hope most of the reason for the quiet in the near future will be because after the initial rush of FedSoc hacks, the GOP just run out of vacancies they can fill after so many were filled over the last 4 years.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. Joe's avatar

    Well said, Dawson.

    I will say, that while it is nice to be hitting 235 (I can remember a time this spring/summer when some thought we wouldn’t!), it is not nearly as satisfying as I once imagined it would be. The deal with the appellate courts really sours what has really been an impressive record from the Biden admin on judges. I can tolerate losing 1-2 judges on the floor when the votes weren’t there, but to just give up on 5 vacancies (I guess 4 now that Wynn rescinded) is hard to swallow.

    I think had Harris won and/or Dems somehow kept the senate I’d be feeling much better about it all. But knowing Trump is back and will likely get to add another 150 judges to our federal judiciary is just sickening to me.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Zack's avatar

    @Joe
    I feel the same way.
    The deal at the end leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, as does the botching of Mangi’s nomination.
    As to Kent Jordan’s seat, I will admit at first I thought there was no way this seat wouldn’t get filled but the more I thought about it, the more I realized this was a seat that was never going to get filled this year.
    Yes, he sent a nice letter praising Biden and all of that but the fact remains he set his retirement date well beyond the 2024 election.
    If he wanted Biden to replace him, he could have taken senior status/retired much earlier then he did.
    As to the next four years, it just stinks we’re going to once again be angry/terrified over the nominees coming down the pipeline versus the last four years.
    That was one thing folks not in the LGBT community or other minority groups don’t get about the last four years in that while not all nominees were to our liking, we didn’t have to wake up and see what horrible racist/anti-LGBT/anti-choice bigot was nominated to a lifetime position.
    Just a shame we lost the seats in OH/PA.
    Would have loved to see Murkowski but especially Collins be forced to show how “moderate” they truly are on judges or stopped a couple of the bad ones but it is what it is.
    Finally, I have enjoyed my time with others who care about the courts as much as I do but once Trump/Republicans take over, I too will be taking a break.
    Because it’s going to be hard to see a couple of flips that shouldn’t have happened happen and see horrible older conservative judges be replaced by younger ones instead of flips to moderate/liberal judges.
    I have enjoyed chatting with you all.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. raylodato's avatar

    I don’t know how I found this place, but I’m glad I did. I first got interested in the lower courts after the Miers/Alito nomination saga in 2005/6. I was looking up some information and came across the Defending the Environment site, which listed some anti-environment nominees from Bush 43 for the lower courts, and I got hooked. Very interested in Obama’s nominees, but I have to admit I took a pass under 45, although I did watch Kennedy’s grilling of Matthew Petersen more than once.

    Have to say that although they weren’t all home runs, I am really impressed with what Biden pulled off. Someone said earlier today that the wheels came off a bit when Ron Klain left, and I agree.

    The deal–well, I’ve probably said enough about Schumer as it is.

    I’m mostly impressed with you all. How you’re able to even have a guess (much less a list) as to who might be nominated to a vacancy is seriously impressive. And then to have a handle of who got nominated if it wasn’t on your list. The judicial branch of this country is lucky to have folks as engaged as you.

    We’ll see what happens. The first 30+ will get filled pretty quickly, and we’ll lose some ground in red-state district courts when Clinton/Obama judges retire. But the chaos this week doesn’t bode well for Trump as the electoral titan who always gets his way, so whatever stalling tactics Democrats have will be necessary and perhaps useful. A lot can happen in 2 years and the “Senate is lost for a generation” crowd will look silly. (After 2004, Rove’s “permanent Republican majority” was actually being talked about seriously. Katrina, do your thing). I expect to stay on for a while, and wish each you good luck.

    Liked by 3 people

    • dawsont825's avatar

      That’s an excellent point you raised there at the end, and not to turn this into a political horse race shpeal (even though judicial nominations arise from senators and the president). After the election, I had a brief moment of nihilism and pretty much resigned myself to 6+ years of GOP control of the senate. My thought pattern stemmed from the fact that Dems had to be PERFECT (2 Dem senators from each state) in every blue and swing state to achieve a senate majority (NH, AZ, NV, MI, GA, etc.) while the GOP has such a population/representation advantage where they start off every cycle with like 20 deep red states (where no one lives) which in turn elect hard-right senators. I say that to say, it just feels like the GOP can throw Hail Mary’s at swing states and hit sometimes, denying Dems an extra vote for many years (Kirk in IL, Brown in MA, Ayotte in NH, Johnson in WI, Gardner in CO, Heller in NV, etc.) While that may be true, politics in this country is never stagnant. 2 years from now is a LONG time and 4-6 years is even longer.

      If you had asked me after 2014 or even 2016 if Dems would ever hold one senate seat in Georgia, let alone TWO, I would have looked at you like you had 5 heads. But that’s what happens after elections, people sour on a party, or senators and change can happen. The Dems have looked at NC as their white whale and are hellbent on flipping it like they did with Virginia many years ago. Will they finally accomplish it in 2026? Who knows? Maybe in 4 years, we’re all used to a Sen. Cooper from NC denying Trump and Budd the chance to stack the district courts with rabid FedSoc hacks. Let’s get crazy and say that in 4 years, AG-elect Jeff Jackson successfully challenges Sen. Budd for his seat and the Dems do something silly and gain a majority in 2028 after flippins Collins’, Johnson’s, and whoever is appointed to Vance’s seat, loses. In my wildest dream, I couldn’t have imagined that Dems would flip a senate seat in Georgia, re-elect one of them, and have them both be solid liberal senators instead of the blue-dog types from red states. But here we are (If Ossoff loses in ’26, I’m honestly gonna cry)

      With all that said, our politics will look totally different by this time in 2026 and even 2028. New faces in the senate (whoever replaces Durbin, Welch, etc.) and new faces of presidential contenders will be fun to see. Here’s to hoping that things don’t stay the same and that the country sours on Trump in less than a year. While the red-state Dem senator era may be officially over, that just gives them more money to spend on swing states.

      Liked by 1 person

  18. Mike's avatar

    Not exactly the ending I’d hoped for but congrats on the 235 judges Biden and senate democrats. I didn’t think they’d break 200.

    I hope to see these judges names in articles striking down Trump policies for years to come.

    I also wish they’d not forgotten the DC local judges.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. tsb1991's avatar

    The local DC judges were attempted to pass on voice votes but have been objected to without explanation. I mean jeeze, even Tuberville gave a reason for his military blockade, you can’t even clear that subterranean bar?

    Schumer did give a speech after the Murillo confirmation about the record number of judges confirmed during Biden’s term. I think that explained why Durbin presided over that vote, something that party leaders almost never have to do, and Schumer did thank members of the SJC, apparently some of which were on the floor for his speech.

    If I had any gripes with the Senate scheduling this year, it’s definitely the fluffy light schedule over the summer, where they had two weeks off for 4th of July and then having a week off for the Republican convention. I feel like they should have had just one week off for 4th of July, and use that time to confirm some of the lower priority nominees. Even June was pretty light, one week was shortened due to Juneteenth and I think the Senate gave itself a day off for some other reason that month.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. tsb1991's avatar

    The bill to avoid the shutdown is the last vote of this Congress. Wrap-up should be after and we’ll see if anything comes out of those Amtrak Board of Director nominees whose cloture was filed on, or if we get any nominees voice voted.

    Liked by 1 person

      • tsb1991's avatar

        I still couldn’t tell you who’s in line after Schumer and Durbin, the only name I’ve really seen floating around is Klobuchar, and maybe Schatz? Durbin is up in 2026 and given his age, I wouldn’t be surprised if he retires. I’m thinking next time Democrats have the Senate a decent possibility the next SJC chair is Whitehouse, I feel he’s been eyeing that for a while and would be a good chair.

        On the house side it was pretty easy to see that Jeffries was the heir apparent to Pelosi, there’s no clear sign on the Senate side.

        As I typed this the Amtrak Board of Directors were confirmed on voice votes, no wrap-up yet.

        Liked by 1 person

      • lilee2122's avatar

        I have to laugh ar this Politico headline late tonite….House Gop float a debt limit and spending deal With Themselves… .. the house circus of last season continues with an even smaller majority…..With the senate I don’t know what to think yet.. That’s a downer but I’ll be around for awhile see how the judicial nominees stack up….. It’s been a pleasure to get to know this blog and all of you. Happy Holidays to you and yours…

        Liked by 2 people

  21. tsb1991's avatar

    Well, that’s all she wrote. Kinda feels sad and empty now with the Congress coming to an end. I still remember waking up the morning following the Georgia runoffs nearly four years ago, waking up in an even better mood than I was after Biden had defeated Trump (while Senate control hadn’t been decided, I had subjected myself to Republicans easily winning the Georgia runoffs and that Biden’s presidency, especially judges, would be stuck on the runway from Day 1). One of the first things I thought of following the Georgia runoffs was that it was all engines go for judges, and I gave myself a resolution at the time that I was going to aggressively follow the judiciary and nominations, and make that the part of the Biden presidency I was interested in the most.

    Definitely not subjecting myself to watching the Senate for the next few years, it’ll be too painful to watch. With 53 seats there won’t be any drama to any Federalist Society hack getting confirmed. While Collins is the best flip opportunity for Democrats in 2026, my concern is that the 53-seat Majority should help Collins, since it’ll give her a TON of leeway to vote against the party, as her vote will not be needed for any nominee. Also not going to let myself die inside on January 3 having to watch Harris swear in a Republican majority and needing to call Thune the Majority Leader. Any drama next year would be watching the House try to pass Trump’s agenda with a 220R-215D majority, which will start at 217-215 and remain there for months thanks to appointments.

    On a follow-up about the CDCA being fully seated now, according to fedjudges it’s the first time since July of 2014 that the court has no vacancies, not at all surprising it was during the last time with a Democratic President and Senate (and in the following time period you had a Republican Senate completely shutting down Obama’s confirmation process for judges, along with Feinstein and Harris fighting Trump over blue slips).

    Liked by 3 people

  22. Ryan J's avatar

    I will also stay around on the blog for a while. I first got into the federal judiciary in late 2019, keeping track of circuit courts and some district courts. I didn’t keep track of all district court vacancies and nominees until Biden took office, though I will probably pay more attention during Trump’s second term than his first, and definitely more than the first 2.5 years of his first term.

    Also, idk if it will be the same when Trump takes office again, but during Biden’s presidency, checking this blog alerted me about new judicial vacancies much faster than roaming around the Wikipedia pages of the federal courts would have (which was usually how I learned about vacancies from 2019-21). But that’s fine by me if it takes me a bit longer to learn about a upcoming vacancy… and also there are a small number of far-right judges who I would be happy to see gone even if they are replaced by an equally far-right judge. I hope all judges except for that small list hold on for the next four years.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. aangren's avatar

    First let me say it has been a privilege to post here and comment for the past four years. i still recall the first nomination hearing with CJA and KBJ in their circuit confirmation hearing. It was a pure privilege to see that and to get excited every few weeks to see the latest batch of nominees and who was a public defender, civil rights lawyer etc

    Julien neals was the first biden federal judge appointed a black man and murrilo a hispanic woman would be the last federal judge. In terms of diversity biden has done his part and for all my issues with the man a great appreciation for that Mr. President.

    Another reason why this is critical is because this diverse judges will higher a large portion of black law clerks and other minorities giving them further credence and accomplishments and in turn setting them up for promotion to judges in the next democrat presidency and create job opportunities and paths. This is critical as we already see that just 13 black students were admitted to harvard law school this year , the lowest in nearly half a century, which was the goal of the republicans, they want less blacks in this positions of authority, and having less opportunities.

    I can be rest assured that judges nancy abudu, perez and other greats biden federal judges black or white or latino will give minorities their fair share and due and encouragement and help them in their careers as white folks have done for themselves for years.

    When biden won re election and prior to those runoffs the assumption was that republicans would control the senate and even during the midterms a red wave was predicted that would have given the gop the senate.

    All in all 235 is a nice number and a solid achievement, in actuality its like around 225, giving about 5-10 republicans biden agreed to appoint in a so called deal with senate republicans. someone correct me on this point if im wrong, but nominees to wyoming, indiana, and utah, and florida were clearly republican.

    The bar has been set by biden he started the relay race the next blue president be it shapiro, moore, or whitmer or dare i say harris again somehow has to pick up the slack. Several good men and women were lost in the fight, mangi, lipez, park, maria gaston , but 225(minus the republicans biden appointed) is a solid job.

    I hope Washington attorney general elect nick brown already has draft of lawsuits ready to file at the washington district courts filled with tons of liberal biden judges, i look forward to reading in the future ”biden judge blocks trump policy” countless times, not all will prevail on appeal but several will stand just as it did in last trump term (i recall judge lucy koh blocking trump policies)

    It just saddens one to think in another month vile racists and bigots and federalist society frat boys in the mold of lawrence van dyke in their 40s will flood the federal bench but biden had his fair share of success as well.

    Who do you guys predict of the biden judges is going to be on the bench the longest? Brad garcia? Embry kidd is really young as well.

    Liked by 4 people

  25. Mike's avatar

    DC superior court is about to become the harshest court in the country after Republicans fill the 9 Biden vacancies and all the Obama ones with prosecutors.

    lol, I remember looking at it and thinking how lucky Dems got that most of the Obama vacancies hasn’t ended thanks during the 15 year terms.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thomas's avatar

      I know that most people here are not interested in the things who are small-sized and just think big, but fact is, that on the DC Superior Court the number of applicants is small – for the last opening there have been just nine applications – and that will not change under Trump. I see him either nominating the same people or leave them open for his complete term.

      At the DC Court of Appeals I think he bring either forward two different applicants or leave them open for the next four years, too.

      Generally I see Harsh is maybe also tired of running this blog, having not added Cheeks and Murillo so far, I have just noted, that most people here are generally dissatisfied no matter the White House or the US Senate has done, it was always too few and too late. In the last four weeks there have just been complaints about the deal, nobody has ever considered that a more moderate candidate has maybe made it and not left the vacancy open for Trump. But sorry, I forgot, Schumer’s note that they don’t have the votes is a lie, it’s just that he’s not ruthless enough to convince the two members of his caucus, who leave in a few weeks and hence have no interest to follow the orders of their soon-to-be minority leader. Fruitless discussions what Schumer did wrong the last four years, Leahy twenty, Thurgood Marshall thirty and Roosevelt sixty years ago are dominating now, as well as Childs and Ramirez, who both have received lifetime appointments, no matter if the people here like it or not. The next four years will become horrible enough to complain about what was not done in the last four years, I think it wasn’t far that bad as it is painted here, especially comparing it with the years before and in front of us.

      Liked by 1 person

  26. Zack's avatar

    I will say this, 235 judges is nothing to sneeze at but as has been pointed out on some judicial blogs, SCOTUS is still 6-3 and is likely to be that way for a long time to come.
    I guess I would feel better if we hadn’t botched/lost four circuit court seats, two of which will result in flips right away and possibly a third if Stranch doesn’t take back her senior status and the gaslighting that it was okay to give them up for district court seats, though I do realize us not winning more seats in 20 and 22 put us at the mercy of Manchin and Sinema, who screwed nominees on their way out the door.
    I also get Schumer he had no leverage over Manchin but with Sinema, he should have told her if she wanted to see her friend Sharad Desai get confirmed, it would be after other judges were or he doesn’t get a vote.
    Finally, as to Schumer’s leadership, yea I won’t be sad if he and Durbin aren’t around in the Senate the next time Democrats take power so we can have some fighters like Sheldon Whitehouse on judges but Harry Reid/Patrick Leahy did a lot more damage then Schumer did on judges.
    Reid did the nuclear option (too late IMO) in late 2013 but never put his foot down with Leahy on the blue slip and thus gifted McConnell/Orrin Hatch with Circuit court seats they never should have had.
    That was in addition to not playing hardball with W after Democrats got the Senate in 06, no way some of the hacks that got put on the court in 07 and 08 have gotten votes.
    And don’t get me started on how many older judges were put on the courts under Obama as well, many of whom were moderate and didn’t see an issue with taking senior status under Trump.
    Bottom line, while I’m not 100% happy with how this ended, it’s far less angering then it was in 2016 at least to me.

    Liked by 2 people

    • shawnee68's avatar

      The problem we will have over the next 4 years isn’t judges.

      Even if we got those 4 unconfirmed judges it won’t stop Trump.

      It will have to be Democrats in congress and. few Republicans .

      All is not lost because we did not get each every judge you wanted.

      Now is not the time to be giving up. We still have openings to cut into the Republicans 3 seat advantage .

      Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        I think you are missing the point. People like myself aren’t upset because we didn’t get everything we wanted. We are upset because we didn’t get everything we wanted because of laziness, or incompetence, or BOTH. I don’t mind losing because the other team is better. I mind losing because we best ourselves.

        And you are correct when you say now is not the time to give up. I would just add neither was the lame duck the time to give up either. Let’s hope Dems do a better job in the minority than they did during the lame duck in the majority.

        Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        What need are more Democratic senators . If we had 3 more than we could have avoided what happened.

        I won’t blame Dems or Chuck Schumer simply because they did not have enough help .

        That has nothing to do with being “lazy” and/or”incompetent.”

        It appears that MTG and Matt Gaetz will be running for Senate in the midterms . If that happens it’s an opportunity to reduce the margins of the GOP in the Senate.

        All is not lost.

        Liked by 2 people

  27. lilee2122's avatar

    I felt down trodden during the first Trump years. When Biden won in 2020 it was like a light went on and I watched with excitement as his early judges were confirmed and had this adrenaline rush of justice for all once again.. browsing judicial sites I finally found this one…Its been a joy here..I saw the house trip over itself and even lately trip over what even trump wanted….I see chaos in Trumps term in the first few months with the cast of characters he nominates for positions..I think with the chaos the Senators have to hold fast to their ideals and the sure way to measure if they are is how they will votes on judicial nominees.. Senator elect GOP John Curtis of Utah I have read is considered moderate and remains to be seen as a swing vote. I’ll be watching that one besides Collins, Murkowski and any other surprise gop…

    Liked by 2 people

  28. Mitch's avatar

    What will happen to the vacancy left by Sarah Netburn’s failed nomination to the Southern District of New York? One name I’m watching is Saritha Komatireddy, who was nominated for the Eastern District of New York. The Democratic Senators were OK with her, but withdrew their consent to protest the Amy Coney Barrett nomination. She’s already been vetted and no one had any problems with her, so she could be confirmed quickly.

    Liked by 2 people

  29. Austin's avatar

    Howdy, all haven’t commented before but I’ve been reading silently since the first Trump term and I’m glad this site does such a good time achieving and discussing judicial appointments. Just wanted to comment that even if less vocal there are Fed Soc or America First Legal type who read this site as well. So I hope you guys keep up the good work even if traffic isn’t as strong when Biden leaves.

    Regardless, it should be an exciting next 4 years of judicial appointments, and it should be interesting to see if Trump continues to appoint high level Fed Soc talent like last time or switches to less talented picks and prioritizes ideology or connections to Trump or MAGA.

    Like

  30. Austin's avatar

    What type of judges do y’all think Trump is going to appoint in his second term? His previous appointments were pretty high caliber conservative legal intellectuals, but this meant they weren’t usually well known in MAGA world nor as outwardly ideological. I wonder if he’ll follow thru with the threat to cut Fed Soc off in favor of more America First Legal nominees or lawyers more connected with his inner circle.

    Like

  31. Mike's avatar

    “MTG and Matt Gaetz will be running for Senate in the midterms”

    I got some real bad news here. Neither will make it out of the primary.

    WI, OH and NC in 2022 were MUST WINS and Dems dropped the ball.

    FL isn’t going to flip blue again for a while.

    Matt Gaetz ethnics report is so damning he might not even get to start his OAN job, it’ll be Laura Trump or something dumb like that.

    MTG will likely lose the primary to an establishment Republican in Georgia, I’m hopeful Jon Ossoff can keep the seat blue but if term limited Brian Kemp runs that’s probably a GOP pickup.

    Senate maps not gonna be easy unless Trump really messes up. Like starts a war or causes a recession.

    Tillis in NC

    Collins in MA (she’s prob gonna win unless Trump goes after her)

    Sen. Brown running for Vances seat in OH (he lost by 4% in double digit state for Trump)

    Mary Peltola in Alaska, she’s won the statewide house race twice and lost by 3% in a Trump 13% state

    I’m kind of done hoping for the best or expecting people to do the right thing so there’s a 0% chance Dems pick up all 4 of these and hold on to all their seats.

    Most likely hope is Dems pick up 2 seats so Trump doesn’t get to do anything too crazy with a 51 seat majority if Collins is still in and Dems try to win a 50/51 seat majority and the white house in 2028 through WI and NC.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Austin's avatar

      What are the chances that Judges Act 2025 gets signed into law by President Trump?

      He obviously has the votes in the House and 53 in the Senate…so the only question is if he can get 7 more cross party votes.

      I certainly don’t think it’s ridiculous to imagine it possible that a similar bill to the Judges Act could be passed and signed into law under Trump. After all, the bill could be reshaped to allow Trump to get open seats in Red states, while opening Blue State Seats after his term. Otherwise a deal could be made within the Senate to horse trade nominees. With it guaranteeing that moderate conservatives obtain certain seats or even moderate democrat get confirmed.

      I can’t find the article right now but there was an article within the last week or two where a Democratic legislator stated he’d support passing this if Vetoed next year under Trump.

      Like

      • Austin's avatar

        I certainly could see the Senate blocking its passing, but do you really think the House Republicans would block it? It’s not like they won’t get cross over votes and the bill adds judges for Trump to confirm.

        Not sure, why republicans in the House would vote against it when Trump would seek its passage. As while it certainly could face some initial resistance for not going far enough in giving him seats both in quantity, quality (Circuit Court), and speed. I think ultimately it will be supported by Trump if it can pass the Senate.

        Rather I think the big trouble will be getting it passed in the Senate and in what form it will take shape in. As I could easily see this being an issue with Democrats seeking to push the opening of seats into the future and Republicans seeking to have more seats open up sooner. This naturally could lead to trouble but I could see the standard fair of a bipartisan gang come together to pass something, which as long as Trump gets around the 22 seats before his terms end I see passing into law.

        Like

    • Gavi's avatar

      In another era, this would have been a perfect pocket veto, an all but extinct constitutional creature. On the one hand, I am glad this Judges bill won’t become law, no matter how it’s prevented. On the other, why should Bush be the last president to be able to successfully pocket a veto? Then again, I wouldn’t want Trump using pocket vetos, either, so maybe it’s all for the best.

      I hope Dem senators in the next congress will filibuster the heck out of any attempt to reintroduce this Judges bill, unless the dates are significantly pushed back beyond an electoral blindspot.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I keep saying Democrats can’t continue to reward bad behavior. Republicans damn sure don’t. They don’t even reward GOOD behavior. Biden signing this bill would have done just that. House Republicans easily could have passed this bill before the election. They didn’t & that’s on them. No way on God’s green Earth would they have still passed this bill in the lame duck had Harris won & senate Democrats pulled off a miracle.

        I think the most important part of Biden’s remarks on the White House website about why he veto’s this bill was that too many states that would have added judgeships have existing vacancies. So, this isn’t about judges being overworked. This is about Republicans wanting a Republican president to add judges to the bench. I agree the judiciary is overworked but you can’t solve the problem in a partisan way. Reintroduce the bill & make move all dates up four years. I would vote for that. Or take the last four years of the proposal & divide those additional seats into the earlier years if you want so that the end date remains the same. Until then, work on filling the existing vacancies.

        Liked by 2 people

  33. Zack's avatar

    We need more judges but this veto had to be done.
    The way Republicans sat on the bill until after the election shows you how fair they would be in implementing the plans it had.
    My guess is all circuit court seats would be filled ASAP with right wing hacks and same with district court seats.
    Biden was right to call that out in his veto.
    It’s a shame it had to come to this but it is what it is.

    Liked by 2 people

  34. Zack's avatar

    @Dequan, I’m glad that was pointed out, as well as Durbin pointing out that McConnell whining about Judge Wynn and other judges taking back their senior status is laughable in the fact of what he did with SCOTUS.
    Since the 80’s, Republicans have been able to do bad faith acts with the judiciary without being called out most of the time or even when it was, it was too wordy for most folks to understand.
    Here it was clear and to the point, don’t talk about overworked courts when there are dozens of seats that were kept open on purpose by Republicans.
    They are operating in bad faith here and Biden knows it, hence this veto.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      That is correct but still does not change the reasons to veto it.

      1. The president (And Senate) that will fill ANY of the additional seats should not be known ahead of time. That removes any partisan advantage. The only opportunity for this to be achieved was before election day. The senate did their job. The House didn’t.
      2. If these additional seats are needed, then Republicans should have used the past four years to work with President Biden to fill all of the vacancies in their home states. There is no reason to add additional seats if they are perfectly fine with going years not filling the vacancies that currently exist.

      Liked by 4 people

  38. Gavi's avatar

    Are folks still confident that Stranch will rescind? Why is she taking her own sweet time? Is she waiting on the Campbell nomination to be returned to the WH on January 3 for the sine die adjournment? I’ve been seeing speculations on who will get the nomination by Trump, with the assumption being that Stranch won’t in fact rescind.

    I know it’s not her fault Schumer made such a bad deal. I know she desires and deserves her retirement but can’t she hold out at least 4 more years? Her home state senators accused her of cutting backroom deals to get her former clerk the nomination. Is she not only going to take that insult, but also reward those senators by giving them a plum seat to fill? Would be a disaster.

    Liked by 2 people

    • star0garnet's avatar

      Who was ever ‘confident’? I believe it’s likely, which I believe is the position shared by most here, and I’d probably hold that position until a Trump nominee got a hearing for the seat. The only thing I’ve been surprised by since the ‘deal’ didn’t include votes for Lipez and Campbell has been Park’s withdrawal, without which I highly doubt Wynn would have rescinded before January 3.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Gavi's avatar

        @Star

        I get you got burned by previous 80% predictions but likely is weak sauce. Anything’s likely so that’s not exactly staking out a position. But not everyone’s been hedging. Giving something a better than 50% chance of happening shows a lot of confidence, no?

        Finding common ground on anything has eluded us since you first started on here, but here we are at last because I also believe that Park’s withdrawal was the immediate impetus behind Wynn’s rescission before January 3. Wish someone would whisper to Campbell to do the same.

        Liked by 1 person

  39. aangren's avatar

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/12/24/trump-biden-judges-vacancies-retirements/

    Look at this preposterous article from the Washington post and note the huge right wing bias and narrative. it is very one sided ,it quotes well know hacks like josh blackman who decries the partisanship and politicization of wynn decision to withdraw senior status, the same individual who has said clarence thomas grifting and corruption is not an issue and just the left playing politics, same individual who had nothing to say when that trump judge in Kentucky rescinded her senior status because she was mad her replacement wouldn’t be a right wing republican hack in chad meredith. They then quote another federalist society charlatan in ed wheelan. No pointing of the fact that mcconell urged all republican judges to take senior status so trump could fill their seats, no talk about the district judge in Kentucky rescinding out of pure politics.

    Again how can democrats and liberals win when this are the narratives? when even the so called ”liberal” leaning Washington post owned by a billionaire donating a million dollars to trump inauguration , puts out the blatant one sided article, quoting conservatives, yet no liberal view point or democratic narrative counter to that. I am just sick of these guys having their foot on oru necks daily 24/7 we never fight back never.

    Gavi dont hold your breath stranch wont rescind the threats by republicans and mcconnell likely spooked her and she is afraid of the backlash, its possible wynn ever goes senior again because of this fears.

    One side fights with guns and bayonets the other sides plays with their thumbs like incompetent charlatans.

    For once in my life time i want to see democrats pushing back against this nonsense just once!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Gavi's avatar

      It’s incredible for anyone to see anything written or spoken by Josh Blackman as anything other than partisan. Just a couple weeks ago he compared KBJ’s performance in a Broadway show (for free!) to Clarence Thomas’s hundred of thousands of dollar gifts. Nothing else needs to be said of Blackman.

      And no, I wasn’t holding my breath on Stranch. I was always skeptical that either of them would rescind so was pleasantly surprised when Wynn did. Just sucks that after 4 years of high hysterics on SJC, Blackburn would come out the winner of Schumer’s deal.

      Trump Judge William Campbell Jr. would be the best Dems could hope for, but highly doubt he’d get the nomination in Trump 2.0. I hope Stranch will prevent Justice Sarah Campbell or former FERC James Danly from filling her seat.

      (I don’t think Judge Katherine Crytzer would be in the running, but remember she was nominated only 6 days after the seat became vacant upon the death of the previous judge. She then had all her hearing and votes in the lame duck after Trump was defeated. Such dazzling speed would give Dems a whiplash).

      Liked by 3 people

  41. Zack's avatar

    @Dequan, it goes to the double standard with judicial nominations and everything else with Democrats.
    Democrats, always, ALWAYS have to be the adults in the room and compromise with Republicans on judges or anything else while Republicans can do whatever they want with no blowback.
    Part of that is the way the media is set up but also because to explain how the Republicans are full of crap takes a long winded explanation most people tune out.
    Also, it’s been shown again and again Democratic voters don’t care about the judicial branch the way Republicans do so the few times Democrats have fought back or pointed out Republican hypocrisy, it doesn’t stick.
    Regardless, I’m glad Biden pointed out a fact that was even more obvious under Obama AND Clinton.
    Republicans don’t get to talk about how bad judicial vacancies are when under Democratic presidents, they’ve shown they are willing to let judicial vacancies get to record breaking levels versus letting a Democrat fill them.
    Finally, on where Jane Stranch will take back her senior status, I think we’re going to have to wait until Karla Campbell’s nomination expires to see happens there.
    I will say as with Judge Wynn, she’s there for life and IMO, likely doesn’t give a crap what McConnell or others think, especially since she and other liberals on the 6th Circuit have had no issues calling out conservatives on that court.
    When all is said and done, I hope the only flips we’ll see from this stupid deal are the 1st (it doesn’t bother me as much) and the 3rd which does (self inflicted wound.)

    Liked by 2 people

  42. Zack's avatar

    https://sdfla.blogspot.com/2024/12/mr-mangi-is-47-years-old-if-he-feels-he.html
    I wasn’t aware of this until yesterday but Judge Raag Singhal of the Southern District of FL decided to put in his two cents on Adeel Mangi’s failed nomination in a letter which Mitch McConnell read from the floor while whining about how James Wynn and other judges were playing politics and undermining faith in the courts.
    Not only does Singhal ignore the fact other Muslim nominees went through the ringer and barely got confirmed but the notion that there will be a seat waiting for him down the line is a pipe dream.
    It’s just another example of the double standards we’ve talked about, no Democratic judge could weigh in like this and not get a complaint filed against them.
    I will also say this, Singal is another reason why I don’t like the emphasis sometimes placed on someone being the first Muslim/LGBT/Asian/Black judge etc. to a certain court.
    Because there ARE conservative judges non white judges/judges of different religions etc. on the federal courts too and Democrats set themselves up for bad faith attacks from them when they’re nominated to judicial seats or spew garbage like this.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Gavi's avatar

      @Zack

      “I will also say this, Singal is another reason why I don’t like the emphasis sometimes placed on someone being the first Muslim/LGBT/Asian/Black judge etc. to a certain court.”

      I have been raising this point probably more than any other points I’ve repeated on here. Trump’s nomination of conservatives don’t make them any less objectionable because they happened to be Muslim/LGBT/Asian/black. He’s nominated at least one person from each of these groups (assuming Ozerden is Muslim), but I would have voted against the 8 black nominees just as easily as I would have against Bumatay just as easily as I would have against any other member of a minority. Because it’s not their minority status that concerns me, it’s their conservatism. This is an incomprehensible point for many, but there it is. look out for all the “fabulous” Muslim/LGBT/Asian/black judicial candidates of Trump 2.0.

      Raag Singhal

      What’s the difference between Judge Singhal’s response to Mangi and Judge Michael Ponsor’s response to Alito’s flag controversy? The singular effectiveness of the Article III Project and other rightwing groups. Frank’s been telling us forever that the left simply can’t compete with any rightwing group on the judiciary.

      Look out for the torrent of judicial ethics complaints leftwing group will file against Singhal. And look out for Judge Bill Pryor’s public reprimand of Singhal or Singhal’s apology. And while, you’re at it, look out for Hunter Biden at the inauguration on January 20.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I think people like me who advocate for diversity in the judiciary have been CLEAR. We would rather a White man who is young & progressive over a Clarence Thomas clone. No disagreement there. I would have likely voted against Raag Singhal too if I were a senator. I live in his district. But I would have most likely voted against anybody Trump would have nominated to the seat.

        I think the disagreement is when we have a president like Joe Biden in office with a Democrat senate majority. We shouldn’t have to settle. We should look for young progressives first. If we narrow the list down & all things being equal, we can add diversity of some kind to the bench out of the possible choices then I think that is a good thing to do. But as I’ve said many times I look at age & how progressive a nominee is FIRST. I’ll worry about skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation & any other category AFTER those boxes are checked off.

        Liked by 2 people

  43. raylodato's avatar

    While we’re talking about rescinding retirements/senior status, did Caproni on SDNY rescind? Her vacancy has never appeared on the U.S. Courts site, and it’s not on Wikipedia for either SDNY nor her own site.

    It seemed like the WH was going to submit Farhadi Weinstein for that vacancy, but they never submitted TFW at all. Were they waiting for Netburn to withdraw?

    Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Yes he did but in all but one case, it wasn’t nothing unexpected. In red states such as Texas, Oklahoma & South Carolina for instance, Obama made package deal nominations & Trump only renominated the Republicans from the deal. In blue or purple states such as Pennsylvania & New York, blue slips forced his hand into renominating Democrats.

        The only surprise renomination I can remember from Trump was in Idaho. He renominated a fairly older David Nye to the ruby red state when he easily could have pushed for a young ultra conservative. That’s probably why he was confirmed 100-0.

        Like

  44. Mike's avatar

    Wait, could Kent Jordans future vacancy been legally confirmed by the Senate this year?!

    I thought they didn’t even try because his senior status wasn’t until after the new congress is elected but I see Melissa DuBose was confirmed for a vacancy that doesn’t open until 1/17/2025.

    That’s a 7R/6D circuit court Dems could have flipped to 6R/8D, OMG!

    WTF!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  45. Zack's avatar

    @Gavi,

    Goes all the way back to Clarence Thomas and the fact he was an unqualified hack not fit to shine Thurgood Marshall’s shoes.
    He was able to throw the high tech lynching line in Democrats face and make it seem like the only reason he was being opposed was because he was a conservative Black man.
    Same thing happened during the W years with horrible nominees like Miguel Estrada and Janice Rogers Brown.
    Both horrible nominees but because one was a Latino and the other a Black woman, the race card which conservatives hate the rest of the time came into play.
    I do think it’s likely Sam Alito or Thomas will step down in the next four years (though I do think Thomas will stay until health issues pop up) and if James Ho or Patrick Bumatay is the nominee, the Democrats are being racist/homophobic against someone because they’re conservative attacks will be front and center and Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for setting that up.

    Also, Democratic money folks don’t pour their money into judicial groups the way Republicans do which is why it’s easier for the latter to get nominees faster for vacancies etc. because they have the apparatus in place.

    Finally, I think for the most part liberal/moderate judges have been loathed to make the courts appear political because it would hurt the civil rights victories we DID get from the Warren years on.

    I think that’s finally starting to change to some degree but it’s still rare which is why the absurd complaints filed by the Article III group and others stick.

    Liked by 2 people

  46. Zack's avatar

    @Dequan,
    As angry as I am about that “deal” the stuff I’ve seen from Sinema/Manchin since the election makes it clear that they likely threw a wrench in the circuit court nomination/confirmation game.
    As Shawnee said, the issue was that in not being able to win more Senate races in 2020 or 2022, that left us at the whims of Sinema/Manchin and as this year went on, that became harder and harder to overcome.
    I do think if it hadn’t taken six months to get Ryan Park’s nomination in, that he could have made it, a la Emery Kidd.
    Those types of mistakes in taking too long to nominate people is something that has to be fixed down the line.
    When Circuit court seats open up, you get a nomination within 30/60 days, period.
    As to your other point, I still go by the theory that if Kent Jordan was truly okay with being replaced with a moderate/liberal jurist instead of a conservative one, he would have taken senior status/timed his retirement earlier like D Brooks Smith of the same circuit did.
    He didn’t and I just don’t see it being fair to put someone through the ringer of a nomination process unless it was 100% assured from Jordan he wouldn’t take back/rescind senior status.
    I don’t consider that a failure unlike Mangi’s seat or others.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Yea exactly. Manchin & Sinema were always gonna be Manchin & Sinema. Which is even more of a reason to tee up the tough votes when Vance & Rounds were out for a month. That, more than anything else is what lead to the deal. Getting them voted on (I’ll concede Park wasn’t voted out of the SJC by then so not counting him) when Democrats had a 51-47 advantage was the key. That way Manchin & Sinema would just force the VP to have to come in & break the tie. And that’s not even including days when other Republicans were out on top of those two.

      Like

      • Zack's avatar

        @Dequan,
        Sadly, I could see where Manchin/Sinema would have said, you get these nominees but you won’t get others down the line if you do this.
        Loathe both of them.
        On a different note, in addition to the 1st Circuit court vacancy, Nancy Torresen of the District Of Maine will be taking inactive senior status (means you can come back later if you want to or not) in October of 2025.
        I know the nominees for those two seats won’t be as liberal as we’d like but I think Susan Collins is going to want to make sure that they are at least moderate conservatives.
        If Republicans nominate anti-choice/anti-LGBT/racist flamethrowers, that will be an issue for her, especially since her vote for Kavanaugh.
        Will be interesting to see how that plays out.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ryan J's avatar

        I expect they will pick someone more moderate for the district court as King has to sign off.

        The most effective way for the Republicans to get a hack on the 1st Cir. with the least backlash is convincing Collins to vote present. Under this scenario, they pick a nominee that Collins doesn’t particularly like but doesn’t dislike enough to vote no. King would strongly oppose and vote no, as would all Democrats.

        By voting present, Collins can accomplish 3 things at once:
        1) Not voting for a rightwing hack, which would hurt Collins IF Maine voters decide they care about their state’s 1st circuit seat
        2) Not voting against her own state’s circuit nominee, which would show that the GOP is willing to shove a far right nominee down the throat of even their own party’s senator
        3) Not missing a vote, as voting present counts as a vote

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ryan J's avatar

        I was unaware that Torresen plans on going inactive. I wonder whether she has a health issue or whether she just wants out like Cormac Carney. I’m guessing it’s the latter, as if she had a health issue she could get a certified disability approved (though idk how long that process is).

        Related to that, noahp2 on Wikipedia has done an excellent job on figuring out which senior judges are inactive. Among the circuit judges who have recently went inactive include Diana Gribbon Motz (4th Cir.), Roger Wollman (8th Cir.), Michael Joseph Melloy (8th Cir.), Stephen S. Trott (9th Cir.), and Mary Beck Briscoe (10th Cir.).

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I highly doubt Collins would vote present. T hat’s more gutless than voting yes or no. She loses noting by voting no. Republicans can confirm a nominee without her or Murkowski’s vote & Trump shoving a nominee down her throat would likely help her reelection, not hurt it.

        Liked by 2 people

  47. Ryan J's avatar

    Shower thoughts: Last night in the shower, I was thinking about whether Trump would have done more or less damage with two consecutive terms than two non-consecutive terms. Among those things, I considered how the judiciary would have changed in the past 4 years had Trump won in 2020. Most of the liberal judges who have gone senior under Biden would have held out, while some conservatives who are still on the bench would have gone senior. Had Trump had 2 consecutive terms, he would almost certainly face a Dem senate in his final 2 years, possibly with 52, 53, or even 54 Democrats. Here’s a breakdown of what the courts would look like had Trump won in 2020:

    SCOTUS: 6-3 conservative majority, Breyer would have held out. Alito or Thomas might have retired by now, giving Trump a 4th SCOTUS justice.

    1st Cir.: 4-2 liberal majority. Trump would have filled Torruella’s seat, and possibly Howard’s. Thompson, Lynch, & Kayatta would likely hold out.

    2nd Cir.: 10-3 conservative majority, Trump would have 8-9 judges on this court, following the deaths of Hall, Katzmann, & Pooler. Cabranes may or may not have gone senior. Chin and Carney would likely hold out.

    3rd. Cir.: 8-6 conservative majority (which is the same as we will get with Trump’s non consecutive terms if no liberals vacate in the next 4 years). Smith would still go senior as he did so to take some other post, while McKee and Ambro would have likely held out. Unsure exactly what Jordan would have done in this scenario.

    4th Cir.: 9-6 or 8-7 liberal majority. Motz, King, Keenan, Wynn, & Floyd would likely hold out (though there’s some chance Motz would have gone senior anyway considering she’s now inactive). Agee, Niemeyer or Wilkinson may have gone senior.

    5th Cir.: 12-5 conservative majority. Dennis and Costa would likely hold out, while some combination of Jones, Smith, Richman, or Southwick may have gone senior. Ho may also have been elevated to SCOTUS.

    6th Cir.: 10-6 conservative majority. Gibbons would likely still have gone senior, and possibly Griffin as well, while Cole, White, Stranch, & Donald would likely hold out.

    7th Cir.: 8-3 conservative majority. Flaum went senior before the election was called, and Kanne died in 2022. Sykes might also have gone senior. Easterbrook probably would not. Rovner, Wood, & Hamilton would likely hold out.

    8th Cir.: 10-1 conservative majority: Some combination of Benton, Shepherd, Smith, & Erickson would go senior. Loken would probably hold out considering he’s been eligible to go senior since 2005 but hasn’t yet.

    9th Cir.: 16-13 or 15-14 liberal majority. Berzon, W. Fletcher, Paez, Hurwitz, Graber, McKeown, & SR Thomas would likely all hold out. Watford may or may not have resigned anyway. Callahan or Ikuta may have gone senior, while M. Smith would probably not.

    10th Cir.: 7-5 liberal majority or 6-6 tie. Lucero would likely hold out, and Briscoe might or might not considering she’s now inactive. Tymkovich might have gone senior as he qualified in 2021.

    11th Cir.: 7-5 conservative majority. Martin and Wilson would probably hold out.

    D.C. Cir: 7-4 liberal majority. Garland wouldn’t have become AG, and him, Rogers, & Tatel likely would all have held out. Henderson might have gone senior.

    Fed. Cir.: Not exactly sure what would happen here. Wallach and O’Malley may have retired anyway as they both retired soon after qualifying. Newman would fight to stay in office regardless of who’s president.

    If Trump had 2 consecutive terms, he would also fill a lot of district court seats in California, Washington, New Jersey, & New York, considering those states had a lot of vacancies at the time Biden took office. While the senators might have held some of the seats open, it would be impossible to ignore all of them (and no Dem senator is as much of a partisan hack as Ted Cruz or Josh Hawley).

    Liked by 2 people

  48. Mitch's avatar

    There seems to be expectation that there will be a vacancy on the Supreme Court next year. There is a group of names being mentioned.

    It’s not like 2020 or 2022. In both cases, there were clear front runners whose nominations were expected. This year, there’s a small group of top tier choices with no clear-cut front runner. The group consists of James Ho of the Fifth Circuit, Naomi Rao of the D.C. Circuit, Amul Thapar of the Sixth Circuit, and Andrew Oldham of the Fifth Circuit. In the second tier of this group is Patrick Bumatay of the Ninth Cicuit and Lawrence Van Dyke of the Ninth Circuit. I rate Ho as a slight favorite, but far from a shoo-in like Amy Coney Barrett and Kentaji Brown Jackson were.

    Still, look for someone coming from outside this group. Trump may surprise by naming someone who’s not a judge but whom he trusts. Noel Francisco could emerge as the nominee.

    Liked by 1 person

    • raylodato's avatar

      @Mitch: I don’t know why Ho would be a “slight favorite.” Everyone of Trump’s Cabinet choices have been among the worst/most extreme people he could possibly have named, and it’s clear he/his advisors see this term as his chance to put in place the hardest Right people they can in every instance. Ho has to be considered the most likely choice.

      Thanks for the replies. Most of y’all focused on the TFW nomination. I agree that it’s possible Trump could nominate her for the Schofield vacancy, especially because she didn’t campaign as hard as Bragg did on prosecuting him in New York County.

      But does anyone know anything about Caproni? Did she rescind? I know we talked about her going senior earlier this year.

      Liked by 1 person

  49. Zack's avatar

    After her yes vote for Kavanaugh, I don’t think the oh I tried to stop a horrible nominee or I voted no routine will work for Susan Collins again.
    While I won’t write off her chances, I do think she is more vulnerable then people think.
    While I also think it will be tough for us to take the Senate back in 2026, I won’t be shocked if Republicans shoot themselves in the foot and try to primary Republicans like Thom Tillis or nominate horrible nominees in states like Michigan and thus make it easier for us to flip/keep seats.
    Have to wait and see.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Gavi's avatar

        @Frank

        I trust your crystal ball a lot more than some folks whose hopes and dreams lead them into wishful thinking. It’s amazing that after less than 2 months after a bruising loss, a loss many didn’t see coming even on the day and night it happened you now have folks predicting a Collins loss by sheer force of wishing.

        It’s only going to get worse and I am glad I won’t be around to see it. Some will soon start making up statistics, and confidently give it an 80% chance that Collins will lose. I just hope everyone else knows that they can safely ignore these.

        One of Collins’s first test of the new Trump era starts with how she and the WH fill the vacancy on CA1. This isn’t to say that Maine voters will be waiting with bated breath to see who they pick. But the selection and Collins approval/disapproval will sort of set the tone for her relationship with the WH going into the midterms.

        Liked by 1 person

  50. Zack's avatar

    Sadly, the letter D next to your name is now toxic in West Virginia and others area, warnings signs were there in the 90’s and early 2000’s but once Obama won, that broke people brains in some purple/red states that had Democratic senators like Arkansas/North & South Dakota/Montana etc. and they are now solid red.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to Mike Cancel reply