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. Mitch's avatar

    I just checked Allison Riggs’ reelection totals. District Judge Jefferson Griffin leads Riggs by 2,751,529 to 2,743,888. A recount is certain but I don’t see the outcome changing.

    Here is speculation on my part: Trump appoints Richard Dietz, another justice on the state Supreme Court, to succeed James Wynn on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and then newly-elected Governor Josh Stein reappoints Riggs to to succeed Dietz.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Joe's avatar

    Yep, in a worst case scenario any of Wynn, Stranch, or Wilson could just rescind their retirements so that no actual seat is flipped. Obviously I would prefer them to be replaced with younger, high quality replacements, but it’s still preferable to seeing Trump appoint a replacement.

    Which is part of the reason Mangis confirmation is so important….that seat is currently vacant. Its either Mangi or a Trump pick.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Mit's avatar

    I am also predicting that the following judges will take Senior Status next year.

    Debra Livingston- 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals

    Steven Agee- 4th. Circuit Court of Appeals

    Jerry Smith- 5th. Circuit Court of Appeals

    Edith Jones- 5th. Circuit Court of Appeals

    Richard Griffin- 6th. Circuit Court of Appeals

    Diane Sykes- 7th. Circuit Court of Appeals

    Liked by 1 person

  5. star0garnet's avatar

    I’ll take it as a pleasant surprise for any senior-eligible, GOP-appointed circuit judge not to step down under Trump, and a bitter disappointment for any Dem appointees to step down. Trump can do plenty of damage to SCOTUS, but this is not a particularly harmful term for him to hold in terms of circuit appointments; it’s not even an optimistic take to say that he’ll probably have about half as many appointments as he did in his first term, if that. The upside of having ~100 circuit judges replaced in the span of two terms is that there are relatively few still senior-eligible. Breaking them down by group:

    Trump should enter office with 1-2 vacancies: presumably the Jordan seat, and probably the Greenaway seat.

    29 senior-eligible who had a chance to step down in his first term but did not: 5 Reagan, 4 Sr., 9 Clinton, 11 Jr.

    8 newly senior-eligible: 4 Jr., 3 Obama, 1 Trump

    25 qualifying next term: 7 Jr., 16 Obama, 2 Trump

    The Dem seats besides Greenaway’s that I’m most concerned about flipping are Dyk (Fed, 87), King (4th, 84), McHugh (10th), and Phillips (10th).

    Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        Trump was only short of Obama’s two term 55 circuit court appointments by just one in his first term. He should pass that just with the Federal Circuit alone. And if Democrats don’t get their act together with the 5 remaining weeks in session, he will pass that number just on the Third Circuit alone with Mangi & no Delaware nominee.

        Like

  6. star0garnet's avatar

    Always worth noting that Trump’s outsized impact is attributable to Mitch, with 1/3 of the SCOTUS, 17/54 of the circuit, and 78/174 of the district vacancies that he filled predating his presidency. Roughly 2 circuit and 34 district vacancies is a blip in comparison.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Dequan's avatar

    The senate returns tomorrow. I swear if Schumer does the same one vote Monday & out of town by 4pm on Thursday’s these last five weeks they are in session, they don’t deserve to be in the majority. These last five weeks in the majority will go along way to tell me if senate Democrats have learned anything from the election.

    Because I can assure you once Republicans are in power, they will use it. Hell they haven’t even taken power yet & Trump is already saying they need to go back to recess appointments & basics all Democrat confirmations the rest of the year.

    Like

  10. Joe's avatar

    honestly if they can just commit to 5-6 votes on Tuesdays and Wednesdays I don’t even care if they leave early on Thursdays. They should have enough time to work through them.

    The big thing to watch for tomorrow, IMO, is if Schumer files cloture on Lipez or Lidd. News to start working in those appellate nominees ASAP.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Dequan's avatar

    If it was just confirmations I wouldn’t be worried. But they still have to hash out the budget. Although now that Republicans are gonna be in charge of all 3 branches come January, I would hope Schumer is smart enough to use that as leverage to get a deal done quick. The American people have shown over & over again we have a short memory so not passing a deal in 2024 will be long gone from the votes memory by 2026 if we go by past trends.

    Like

  12. Rick's avatar

    When the 2025 senate calendar comes out, I bet they’ll be in most Mondays and perhaps even work a few Fridays..

    The remaining nominees on the calendar are going to be the last Democratic nominees for a WHILE. Even if there is an election in 2028, (will Trump leave in Jan 2029?) & a Democrat wins the WH, could very well be in the senate minority

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Rick's avatar

    Here is a video of Tali Feinstein interviewing former Justice Breyer

    https://www.google.com/search?q=tali+farhadian+weinstein&oq=Tali+Farhadian+Weinstein&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqEAgAEAAYgwEY4wIYsQMYgAQyEAgAEAAYgwEY4wIYsQMYgAQyDQgBEC4YgwEYsQMYgAQyBwgCEAAYgAQyBwgDEAAYgAQyCAgEEAAYFhgeMggIBRAAGBYYHjIICAYQABgWGB4yCAgHEAAYFhgeMggICBAAGBYYHjIICAkQABgWGB7SAQkxNTI2ajBqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:f54d0ff7,vid:zpI9VaXtsvg,st:0

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Gavi's avatar

    Just like with the elections and many other times before that, I feel a lot of people are setting themselves up for even more disappointments in this lame duck period. I think Frank may be right about the number of lame duck confirmations we can realistically expect, with the Dems being, well Dems.

    We’ve already heard in here that no way Biden would pass up the chance to name his last circuit court judge from his home state or pass up on an opportunity to flip a circuit… yet here we are.

    Has anyone checked for Schumer’s end-of-recess Dear Colleagues letter? It would be poetic/come full circle for him to claim the focus will be judges judges judges. I’d say that this upcoming political wilderness for Dems will serve them right, but Dems are Dems so they probably still won’t learn from it.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. Dequan's avatar

    I don’t know what is wrong with Rebecca Kanter but whatever it is, it was judicial malpractice from the Biden administration if they know she wasn’t going to take the job from the beginning. If she has a pulse, she needs to be dragged into the next SJC hearing & confirmed. She is a sitting state court judge & I haven’t heard peep that she is of the bench in California so whatever the issue is, she needs to finally have her hearing along with Cheeks, Murrillo, Weinstein & Gatewood.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Rick's avatar

      What’s probably going to happen by spring is that someone in the Trump WH will tell him about blue slips for District Court nominees and he’ll pressure senate Republicans to get rid of them.. If Trump gives barking orders to not need blue slips for district court nominees, then away they’ll go

      These remaining Democratic nominees on the calendar are going to be the last Democratic judicial nominees for a long time and senate Democrats need to move heaven and earth to get them all confirmed. Every less seat that Trump can’t fill is a bonus

      Liked by 1 person

  21. Mike's avatar

    “The first order of business in the new Senate should be confirming President Trump’s cabinet. If I am the majority leader, I will keep the Senate in session until those confirmations occur.”

    Sen. John Cornyn’s pitch for why he should be Senate Majority leader.

    Chuck should be embarrassed.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Joe's avatar

    Schumer got most if not all of Biden’s nominees confirmed very quickly, did he? And this was in spite of the confirmation process not being started timely for many of them. What am I missing here?

    I know we knock Schumer for not confirmed judges fast enough, but he has gotten 213 (likely to be 230+ by the end of December) over the line with only 50 or 51 D senators in his caucus. Only a dozen or so had to be withdrawn and most got replacements named anyway. That’s very impressive.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      Unfortunately we don’t have the luxury of looking at it as if we started with the playing field even. When Biden took office Democrats were behind in the judiciary. So doing good isn’t good enough.

      To use a football analogy, imagine your team was down 21 points & the coach just pulled the starting quarterback. Now imagine the backup quarterback came in & the team scored touchdowns on the first two drives. That’s good. But your team is still down a touchdown. Even if you score a touchdown on the third drive, you are only tied.

      Democrats had full control for two years. Yes I know the first two years the senate was 50/50 & two of those 50 were Manchin & Sinema. But that’s where leadership comes in. Use power & pressure. If Abraham Lincoln could get the 13th amendment passed in the 1860’s, the right leadership could get the senate to stay in session for more than one vote on Mondays, past 4pm on Thursdays & even a Friday or two in the 2020’s. The right leadership could get rid of blue slips so that Trump won’t come into office & fill a few dozen red state vacancies with Josh Hawley’s wife & other right wing extremist.

      I agree Biden, Schumer & Durbin did a good job. I just don’t agree good is enough. But don’t worry. In 69 days you will see exactly what I’m talking about when I say if you have power, use it.

      Like

      • Joe's avatar

        I mean, I get all that. But (and I know this will sound blasphemous) I think McConnell’s reputation is perhaps a little overstated here and elsewhere. He didn’t really do anything special in 2017-2020 that Schumer hasn’t been doing the last four years too. There’s no special tricks or extra ruthlessness, just a steady drip of confirmations within the allowable rules of the senate.

        Perhaps McConnell showed a bit more urgency and pushed to fill seats faster in those first two years. But that’s largely a reflection of the GOP and how they only really care about tax cuts and judges. Democrats had other priorities and passed a ton of (good) bills that ate up senate weeks and pushed nominees to years 3 and 4. But the end result is going to be basically the same (probably) and I don’t really give McConnell any extra credit for threatening to cancel recess weeks in order to force some voice votes.

        If we want to give McConnell credit for filling 54 appeals court seats I guess that’s fair, but part of that is just because Trump inherited more seats than Biden did. In fact, the only thing I’d give him credit for being “ruthless” about is what he did in 2015-16 and holding the line on filling most vacancies.

        I’m frustrated too and am always greedy for more liberal judges who will uphold the rule of law and civil rights, but I don’t think we can really blame the senate for much here if they follow through and confirm the rest of these nominees.

        Liked by 2 people

  24. Joe's avatar

    Not a ton in here that long time readers of the blog don’t already know, but I’m sharing anyway:

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-democrats-rush-confirm-judges-before-trump-takes-office-2024-11-12/

    Two relevant quotes that give me some hope:

    “A spokesperson for Senator Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat and chair of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that he “aims to confirm every possible nominee before the end of this Congress.”

    White House spokesperson Andrew Bates on Monday noted that during Trump’s first term, the Republican-controlled Senate confirmed 18 judges after Biden had won the 2020 election but before he took office.”

    Of course, I’ll feel a lot better if Schumer tees up a Thursday vote for Embry Kidd or Julia Lipez later tonight.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Ben's avatar

    Glad to be back to confirmations today. Hopefully things proceed smoothly and without delay.

    I’ve deleted Xitter off my phone, so I’m not going to be as fast catching and reporting on updates anymore. And I will likely fade away come January, as my heart just won’t be in it any longer.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. tsb1991's avatar

    I’m back. Think I’m past the election hangover. While it was definitely terrible I don’t agree with all the “Democrats are dead” takes, which you see in the aftermath of every election about the losing party. The party was supposed to be dead in the aftermath of 2004, while Republicans just needed their death certificate signed off on after 2008 and 2012. If Democrats have any political comeback over the next few years, 90% of it would be if Trump is unpopular and voters take it out on Republicans in 2026, and if Trump is unpopular by 2028 that would be a drag on the Republican ticket.

    I feel like some coverage suggested Democrats had a 2010 or 2014-style wipeout, where the party was obliterated downballot. Casey looks like the only swing state Senate loss while they may even gain a seat in the House (and drop Republicans down to 220, and that number could get lower with vacancies due to appointments to the Trump administration). Proud of the Senate Democrats who hung tough in the swing states, and that includes Tester and Brown. If Casey had survived I’d call the Senate results phenomenal (losing only WV, Brown, and Tester in a year where Trump won, where you’d expect more Democratic carnage downballot). Not only that but Democrats are in a far better position at the state level than what they were after 2016, where Republicans nearly controlled enough legislatures to call for a constitutional convention.

    One of the weird things about the Trump/Senate Democrat splits in the swing states is that those results look to be less of ticket-splitting (people voting for Trump and a Senate Democrat) and a lot of people who showed up, just filled in the bubble for Trump, and left the rest of the ballot blank. Senate Democrats ran roughly even with Harris while Senate Republicans received far fewer votes than Trump. Could definitely be a problem for Republicans in the midterms as those people don’t seem like the kind of voters who’d show up in a midterm. Obama had a similar problem where Democrats wouldn’t show up in off-year elections during Obama’s presidency and you’d have to sweat out a special election in San Francisco where the only building in the precinct is a Democratic Party office. We know coalitions aren’t permanent either and you typically can’t transfer one candidate’s coalition to the next (Trump won with a different coalition than Bush while Biden won with a different coalition than Obama, who had a far different coalition than Clinton), so would those Trump-only voters come out to support whoever the Republican nominee is in 2028?

    With the Senate back today, I checked up on Perry’s confirmation vote. Only Collins and Murkowski voted for her, not Graham or Tillis who were both yes votes in the SJC I believe. A possible sign that they won’t vote to confirm anybody in the lame duck? Also, a light schedule for tomorrow, given they still need to vote on a Tax Court nominee whose cloture was filed on before the break, and I haven’t seen any “further votes possible” disclaimers.

    I probably won’t be watching the Senate live during the next few years as I’ll feel internal bleeding any time I see Thune send out a cloture motion on a Federalist Society hack.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. tsb1991's avatar

    I also had other musings but wanted to break this up into a different post but on the subject of Trump nominees, he’ll likely get two SCOTUS nominations (Thomas and Alito), but where on the appeals court level could he wreak havoc:

    -Assuming Lipez gets confirmed he won’t have any 1st Circuit nominees.
    -On the 2nd Circuit, he already did his damage in his first term but Livingston, the only Bush appointee remaining will probably go senior?
    -The 3rd Circuit he’ll get at least two picks due to Mangi and no nominee for the Delaware seat. Hardiman wouldn’t be eligible for senior status until after 2028 while Chagares isn’t up until 2027
    -On the 4th Circuit, he might be able to do decent damage there as three Republican appointees are up for senior status (Niemeyer, Wilkinson, Agee), while you have an 84-year old Clinton appointee (King).
    -For the 5th Circuit, four of the six non-Trump Republican appointments are eligible for senior status, so we’ll see another wave of retirements here most likely. Elrod wouldn’t be eligible under the next four years while Haynes wouldn’t be until November of 2027, a year after midterms in the event Republicans lose Senate control.
    -On the 6th Circuit, there are three Bush appointees remaining, two of them can go senior (Sutton and Griffin) while it looks like Kethledge couldn’t until after 2028?
    -On the 7th Circuit, Easterbrook and Sykes I’m sure are going to be out the door soon and every 7th Circuit Republican nominee will be by Trump.
    -On the 8th Circuit, all 6 non-Trump Republican appointees are eligible for senior status, I’d imagine you’d see a flood of retirements hear too.
    -Barring any unexpected Democratic vacancies, there are three Bush appointees remaining on the 9th Circuit, all eligible for senior status.
    -The remaining three Bush appointees on the 10th Circuit appear to be eligible for senior status during this next term.
    -Trump left his mark on the 11th Circuit in his first presidency so there’s not much left to do here, barring a likely retirement by Pryor (doesn’t look like he’s eligible until 2027, but decent chance he can announce his retirement in 2026 and the Senate can confirm a replacement and not risk any chance of a Democratic Senate afterwards, no?).
    -On the DC Circuit, his only possible chance at a nomination would be Henderson, who I’m surprised didn’t send out a statement intending to take senior status as soon as the election was called.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ryan J's avatar

      Good analysis. I enjoy doing these analyses too but I’ve been so busy/exhausted lately that I haven’t been keeping up with the courts.

      The likeliest judges for senior status are conservatives who became eligible to go under Biden. Judges who are 70+ have already had one chance to go senior under Trump and didn’t take it then. Granted, a decent chunk of the liberals who went senior under Biden could have gone under Obama but didn’t.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Welcome back @tsb1991.

      I won’t spend too much time on your first post since I have already spoken at length about I don’t see any silver lining in the election results no matter how I see some spin it. Funny I was just reading an article I’ll copy/paste below talking about exactly what you were talking about though. I think Trump will screw the country up royally actually. My problem is I don’t know if we will see a fair election (If an election at all) in 2028 for it to matter as much as people are saying it will.

      As for the second post, I’m still not giving up on Mangi getting confirmed. With Vance likely not returning to the senate & possibly Rubio now missing some time as well, all Schumer needs to do is become good at math over the next 4 & a half weeks (Yes I know that’s not a given but work with me here… Lol) & he could get confirmed. The Delaware vacancy is infuriating to me. Even if Jordan gave Biden some backroom pressure, I would still nominate somebody & make him rescind his senior status.

      I’m not so sure we will see the lone judges on the 2nd & DC circuits retire. I sure hope not. I most fear for the 4th & 8th circuits. The 5th circuit will be beyond repair for a generation sadly after 2028.

      (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/democrats-bush-trump-kerry-2024-election.html)

      Liked by 1 person

      • tsb1991's avatar

        I feel that on my list I could have done a better job distinguishing which judges are up for senior status in 2027/2028 as opposed to 2025/2026. The group in the former would have to contend with the possibility (although not a good one) of a Democratic Senate then, which could definitely affect whether or not they go senior.

        Democrats would have to pick up four seats for Senate control in 2026. After Collins (ME) and Tillis (NC) you get into much redder territory and you’d need a godawful environment for Republicans. There’s also the triggering of special elections for Ohio (Vance) and Florida (Rubio) but Republicans would definitely start out as favored to hold those seats. Peltola looks like she’s going to sadly fall in Alaska but maybe she takes a crack at Sullivan in 2026? If not, she could go for Murkowski’s seat in 2028 if Murkowski steps down then.

        The only Democratic Senators facing any vulnerability IMO in 2026 would be Ossoff (GA) and Peters (MI), both of whom I think should start out favored in a Trump midterm. Any turnover on the Democratic side would likely be through blue state retirements, as Markey (MA), Reed (RI) and Durbin (IL) are all up there in age, though Markey did declare he’s running two years from now.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      I don’t expect the wave of calls to begin until Trump is actually president, or at least until the new Senate is sworn in. Liberal judges waited until Biden actually took office before announcing senior status. But, there could be A LOT of judges going senior at once. This is what the first 2 weeks of Biden’s presidency looked like in terms of judicial vacancies:

      January 20, 2021: Victoria Roberts (E.D. Mich.) announces senior status (Feb 24), congratulates Biden
      January 21, 2021: William Alsup (N.D. Cal.), Robert Katzmann (2nd Cir.), Janet C. Hall (Conn.) take senior status immediately
      January 22, 2021: Larry Alan Burns (S.D. Cal.) takes senior status, having announced before the election
      January 23, 2021: Theresa Lazar Springmann (N.D. Ind.) takes senior status, having announced before the election
      January 25, 2021: B. Lynn Winmill announces senior status (Aug 16)
      January 26, 2021: Jeffrey White & Phyllis J. Hamilton (both N.D. Cal.) announce senior status (both on Feb 1)
      January 29, 2021: Carlos F. Lucero (10th Cir.) announces senior status (Feb. 1)
      January 31, 2021: Dan Polster and James Gwin (both N.D. Ohio) both take senior status
      February 2, 2021: Solomon Oliver Jr. (N.D. Ohio) announces senior status (Feb. 15), Janet T. Neff (W.D. Mich.) announces senior status (Mar 1)

      Liked by 1 person

      • star0garnet's avatar

        Vacancy announcements will certainly be concentrated at the beginning. Here’s how it played out under Biden:

        pre-2021: 2 circuit, 47 district
        2021, Q1: 10 circuit, 38 district
        2021, Q2: 6 circuit, 11 district
        2021, Q3: 5 circuit, 9 district
        2021, Q4: 10 circuit, 9 district
        2022, Q1: Breyer, 7 circuit, 15 district
        2022, Q2: 2 circuit, 16 district
        2022, Q3: 7 district
        2022, Q4: 12 district
        2023, Q1: 2 circuit, 11 district
        2023, Q2: 9 district
        2023, Q3: 1 circuit, 7 district
        2023, Q4: 1 circuit, 16 district
        2024, Q1: 4 circuit, 7 district
        2024, Q2: 1 circuit, 7 district
        2024, Q3: 6 district
        2024, Q4: 3 district

        Nearly 80% of circuit vacancies were announced before a third of his presidency had passed, and while there was a steady drip of district vacancies, they were also heavily concentrated at the beginning.

        Liked by 2 people

  33. humanfault's avatar

    Given that when Trump is sworn into office again he has a high likelihood of replacing both Alito and Thomas has there been any thought given to which judges he may appoint to the court? I know there’s been talk here about judges like Ho, Kacsmaryk and Cannon but those come off to me as rather scorched earth pics who would face a bumpier path to senate confirmation. Articles I’ve read relating to potential nominees have put forth the idea Trump is interested in nominating the first Asian American Justice also which leads me to be more inclined in saying he may pick a Judge like 9th Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay or D.C. Circuit Judge Naomi Rao. Both are firmly and obviously conservative but maybe without as much partisan baggage as someone like James Ho.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Zack's avatar

    George W is the one who called up Republican senators and told them to hold the line on Kavanagh, not Trump.
    When it comes to the courts, he is getting far more credit then he deserves.
    McConnell (following Orrin Hatch’s playbook) and Leonard Leo and even W have had more of an impact on the courts under Trump.
    As to the various circuits, the 4th and the 9th are the ones that worry me the most.
    Robert King’s temper tantrum over Carte Goodwin not replacing him will likely lead to a flip there and Ronald Gould not taking senior status with his age and health issues will likely cost us as well.
    Also, I will be shocked if most if not all of the remaining Reagan/Bush Sr judges in active service don’t take senior status under Trump but I can see a few hanging on until they kick the bucket, their egos are just that strong, J Harvie Wilkson and Frank Easterbrook come to mind.
    The 10th Circuit worries me as well, hopefully some of the Obama judges put on there won’t take senior status ASAP but I fear they will.
    I will also say this, the harsh reality is that Kamala had to win and keep the Senate in order for us to keep making progress on the courts.
    Both the Clinton and Obama years had vacancies that lasted for years because Republicans blocked them from being filled, wouldn’t have been any different this time.
    As I’ve said before, we can bash Senate Democrats but the reality is Democratic voters have shown the courts aren’t a priority for them.
    Can’t be shocked the people we elect have the same take.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I think that’s the wrong question to ask. Apparently senator Manchin was dead set on his personal friend J. Jeaneen Legato being nominated to replace King. The better question would be why didn’t Manchin just give in & sign off on Carte Goodwin. Especially since he appointed him & was close to him.

        As much as I blame The White House for things, this one is all on Manchin. Now he won’t get either on the 4th & Trump likely will flip that seat as a result.

        Liked by 1 person

      • star0garnet's avatar

        @Dequan saying it’s likely to flip is getting carried away. I doubt Trump would agree to appoint Goodwin, so his only path out in the next four years is a coffin. He’s about to turn 81; the average 81-year old man has a 30% 4-year mortality rate. Last I saw him (about five years ago), he seemed relatively healthy; the mortality rate for someone of his social class with a healthy BMI is going to have roughly 2/3 of the mortality of the general populace.

        Liked by 1 person

  36. Joe's avatar

    A nominations hearing has been posted for next Wednesday (11/20). Of course, no word on who will attend yet.

    Not sure if it’s been shared or not yet, but the business meeting for tomorrow has Park (in black, ready for a vote) plus the six district nominees (in red for hold overs).

    Liked by 1 person

  40. Dequan's avatar

    Also it appears senator Vance voted today. That could be because he was in attendance for the majority leader elect vote anyway. Hopefully he doesn’t plan on sticking around for the rest of the year. Senators Cardin & Sinema missed the vote. Sinema isn’t as big of a deal but I hope Cardin finishes out his career strong for the rest of the votes.

    He lives in the next state over for God’s sake. After him playing Russian Roulette with a circuit court seat just because Nicole Berner didn’t live in the part of the state he liked, that’s the least he could do.

    1:54 p.m. By a vote of 50-48, the Senate invoked cloture on the nomination of Jonathan Hawley to be a District Judge for the Central District of Illinois.

    • Republican Senator Murkowski voted in favor
    • Senators Cardin and Sinema did not vote 

    Like

    • tsb1991's avatar

      Assuming Kidd gets voted on tomorrow, Sinema being out is probably a net positive at this point, no? She voted against Maldonado and Ritz, I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s a no on any of the remaining appeals court nominees at this point.

      Also, assuming there’s no votes today after Hawley is confirmed and the cloture vote on that Ethics Director, what will Thursday’s schedule look like? There’s still a cloture motion out for Fung to the Tax Court, so unless any further votes are held this evening either they stick around a little longer tomorrow (lol) or something gets pushed back into next week.

      Liked by 1 person

  41. tsb1991's avatar

    Gaetz nominated as Attorney General. I’m just assuming confirmation by the Senate at this point because Trump has a Collins/Murkowski-proof majority in the Senate and there’s no McCain to give a surprise thumbs down. Like if your closest resist-lib friend from 2017 carved out a maximal nightmare path of a Trump presidency and who he’d add to his cabinet I don’t think they’d even have Gaetz in the DOJ lol.

    On the plus side, there’s now three or four House members headed to Trump’s administration. Since governors can’t make appointments to vacant House seats the House will be borderline paralyzed for months until the special elections play out (even if these are all Republicans from safe seats that stand no risk of flipping). Really hoping Democrats pull out the last two undecided House races in CA which would make the final House 220R-215D, real chance you might have a 217/216R-215D House for a while.

    On the subject of Trump’s judicial nominations, in 2017/2018, weren’t Manchin/Heitkamp/Donnelly effectively the Collins/Graham/Murkowski of the Biden era? After Heitkamp and Donnelly lost in 2018 was it still Manchin/Sinema/Doug Jones voting for most of Trump’s judges? With Manchin, Sinema, and even Tester gone who are the Democratic Senators that will vote for a Trump judge from time to time? I couldn’t rule out Fetterman, can picture Gallego offering support while not being as antagonistic as Sinema, maybe Slotkin? If you have to cast an occasional vote for a nominee, fine, but any nominee voted out of the SJC on party-lines you should make Republicans confirm them on their own (not that they’d have any problems with that with 53 seats, you could afford 5 absences from your side and still have a majority over a fully-attended Democratic caucus).

    Liked by 1 person

    • Gavi's avatar

      @tsb1991 Multiple users on here have indicated that they plan to stay away or use this blog a lot less when the next administration rolls in. Any chance we can get a reprieve from the endless Trump updates, many of which have zero to do with the reason we come on here? After January 20, feel free to resume your posts updating us about your whereabouts, Trump staffing choices, and your intrepid Political Wire-level ticktock of every senate action that you’ve taken upon yourself for the last few months.

      Trump has a looooot of personnel to name. Please spare us from being forced to learn about them in this judiciary vetting room blog. The point for some of us is to get away from the all consuming Trump news. It would be one thing if that’s what this blog is for. It’s quite another thing, since it’s not. Much appreciated.

      Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      Unbelievable. So a week after getting their asses handed to them in the election & only five weeks left in session, Schumer’s response on week one is one vote on Tuesday, a full day on Wednesday, two votes on Thursday & the weekend begins? Are you freaking kidding me??? My God we deserve to lose with leaders like this.

      As for who could vote for some of Trump’s nominees from the Democrats side, I wouldn’t rule out Ossoff. He will be in a tough reelection fight in two years. I can see some more Sarah Netburn-esse votes from him.

      As for Trump’s cabinet including Matt Gatez, I stay good. Biden is about to hand Trump a good economy that will only get better after these projects from the Recovery Act start to boom. Trump & Republicans will surely take credit for that despite being against it. So I want him to pick the worst of the worst for his administration. Let them screw things up.

      Like

  43. Joe's avatar

    Lilee, technically by rule there’s supposed to be 30 hours of debate. So Kidd would have to wait until Saturday if Republicans really wanted to force Schumers hand.

    Besides, Monday probably works to Schumers advantage anyway. There’s more likely to be an absence or two

    Liked by 2 people

    • Gavi's avatar

      Joe, you’re an old hand in here. How many times have I corrected this misapprehension?

      One last time for the road: The rule does *not* say there must be 30 hours of debate. The rule allows for *up* to 30 hours of debate. 30 hours is the ceiling, not the floor. So unless one or more senators have something to say within those 30 hours, the vote may proceed. Repeat after me: Republicans are not being kind and cute by allowing votes under 30 hours. They just simply have no further reason to hold the floor to debate that nomination.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        And to add on to what @Gavi said, I don’t care if there was a required 30 hours of debate. SO WHAT??? We just lost every level of government in DC except Parking Meter Commissioner. They should stay their ass in session at least until Friday.

        They are on the same schedule they have been on the past 3 & a half years. That’s the point of my complaint. It’s ridiculous how much more senate Democrats care about a 4-day weekend over confirming another lifetime circuit court judge & still keep a 3-day weekend.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Joe's avatar

        Alright, thank you for pointing that out Gavi.

        Still, not a big deal that they’re waiting until Monday vs Friday . It really doesn’t matter in the grand scheme.

        What does matter is who Schumer chooses to file cloture for tomorrow afternoon and Monday afternoon. We need him to line up votes for 4-5 more district nominees plus either Julia Lipez or Karla Campbell.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        It is a very big deal that they leave Thursday by 3pm instead of Friday night. That’s literally an extra circuit court judge that could be confirmed if they leave Friday night instead. Or numerous district court judges. If they did that this week & next week too, that’s two more circuit court judges confirmed or about 6-8 more district court judges.

        Are all of you looking at the same calendar I am? Mine says November 13th. What is the date on the calendar you all are looking at???

        Like

      • tsb1991's avatar

        The Senate is in on Monday next week, so any cloture motions sent out tomorrow can be voted on Monday. We’re down to just party-line nominees on the calendar (and the local DC judges, if those are voted on I can’t imagine there being much of a fight there even in this lame duck), so attendance next week will be the biggest challenge for Democrats.

        Park should be voted out of the SJC tomorrow where Republicans will almost assuredly flip out about A) Park not getting any blue slips and B) say that only Republican Senators and Presidents can confirm judges in a lame duck session when they lose the presidency and Senate, and that in fact the US constitution explicitly prohibits Democratic presidents from having any federal judge nominated and confirmed.

        There should also be six district nominees voted out of the SJC next week. Given what we’ve seen on the floor so far after the election I’d bank on all of them being party-line votes on the SJC, and you’ll also see a repeat of the B point I made above lol

        I honestly don’t care if judges get confirmed in the lame duck regardless of which party controls the federal government and the results of the preceding election, if you’ve got the power and the votes to do so then nothing’s stopping you, just at least be consistent about it. Your term also ends in January, not the day after the election.

        Liked by 1 person

  45. Mike's avatar

    Hmm, Cathy Fung wasn’t listed on the senate cloakrooms twitter account as being on the schedule of votes today but still got a cloture vote.

    She’ll be confirmed alongside David Huitema tomorrow before the Kidd cloture vote, I still think 1:30pm on a THURSDAY is too early to call it a week!!!

    I need clarification from anyone who’s more familiar with the senate rules about an idea I had that they seem to be following through today.

    What’s stopping Senate Dems from holding only cloture votes for all the district nominees?

    Have 3 cloture votes each day on Tues, Wed, Thurs then hold 9 confirmation votes in a row at the end of Thurs without the 2 hour wait in between as Republicans either just leave or all vote in quick session so they can go home for the weekend. They’d clear the current ready backlog in 2 weeks.

    I think they did that in Dec 2022 to confirm 12 or 13 judges by 2am.

    Liked by 2 people

      • Mike's avatar

        I was about to say that’s suspiciously nice of the GOP to just let Dems confirm 9 judges before double checking and nope, all 9 had cloture votes the same day too.

        Still, I know I’ve seen some nominees get a cloture vote then be confirmed later so I’m wondering if my idea could work or even better, they can just do what they did last time.

        I’m guessing Chuck won’t do it because it would be mean spirited for Republicans to possibility stay and do their jobs at the risk of missing their flights home for Thanksgiving or Christmas while Trumps filling the intelligence service with Russian assets.

        Liked by 1 person

    • tsb1991's avatar

      Fung also only got 58 votes for cloture (of the five other Biden Tax Court nominees, two were voice voted, and the others got 79, 73, and 69 votes). Her Finance Committee vote was 19-8 so 58 votes definitely shows IMO that a lot of Republicans would start World War III over a Tax Court judge getting confirmed in a Democratic President/Senate’s lame duck period.

      Liked by 1 person

  47. Gavi's avatar

    @Mike, there’s a thing loosely called an end of year nominations package. It’s usually worked out between the leaders, with the majority leader having a bit more leverage (since he can threaten to stay in session until they clear the deck). Also included in this package are nominees who either won’t have to be sent back to the WH, or won’t have to go through the committee process all over again upon renomination the next year. Within that package, the 2 caucuses agree on a number and types of nominees, including specific ones. Anyone in that package may be fast tracked/bypass regular rules. But in the very modern senate, this is no longer done to the same extent during a lame duck period when the WH and senate will change hands come January.

    Schumer can set up back to back votes for district nominations if he wants. He just need to not have attendance issues for votes to invoke cloture, otherwise it’s a waste of time.

    Liked by 1 person

  48. Mitch's avatar

    I just got home from work. This is indirectly related to judges. According to the news, Donald Trump plans to nominate Congressman Matt Gaetz for Attorney General. Before you check your calendar, it’s not April Fool’s Day.

    Gaetz can be entertaining, but is he Presidential cabinet material?

    Liked by 2 people

  50. tsb1991's avatar

    There’s an article in Bloomberg reporting that the House may take up and pass the Senate-passed Judges Act to expand the number of district court seats, should that happen without any modifications to the bill it’d then go to Biden’s desk.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment