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

    • Dequan's avatar

      There’s two things stopping them from doing that. Manchin & Sinema. This is why I was advocating for them to confirm them before the recess when you had two Republican senators out. I know somebody else mentioned over a week ago what was stopping those two senators from returning to DC. AGAIN, one reason was one had eye surgery & the other was campaigning to be VP. His schedule was known well in advance. That was the window to confirm at least Campbell & Lipez.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Anthony Myrlados's avatar

        I don’t think either of those two Senators are enough of a issue to make it impossible to confirm these four circuit judges. Mangi, yes, but that’s because additional Senators oppose him. The other three are still possible. Otherwise, I don’t think Thune would’ve negotiated this. He must be worried there’s a chance they’re confirmed.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I think Manchin is a true no. That leaves Sinema. She can be bought off. The problem is the Republicans have more leverage & possibly promised her a position in the next administration so she likely won’t flip. She could have flipped before the election when we didn’t know who the next president would be & before her nominee was confirmed.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Joe's avatar

      The truth is there is nothing structurally stopping them. The only obstacle is corralling the 51 democrat senators and making them stay in DC and vote for the nominees.

      If the GOP senators go into a rage (and they will) it would throw up a few procedural hurdle, but Schumer can always limit the debate time for some of those votes.

      That’s probably the most frustrating part about all of this. If Democrats didn’t have a majority I’d be thrilled with the deal. But they’re throwing away their power (maybe the last time they’ll have a majority for the rest of the decade!) in order to avoid a messy fight or upset some colleagues.

      Liked by 3 people

    • IrvineOnlooker's avatar

      They could do that and then risk Senate Republicans destroy every precedent when they take over (ex. no longer holding nominees over for 2 weeks, blue slips for district court nominees, recess appointments, eliminating 24 hour cloture time for circuit nominees). It’s also why Republicans never tried these obstructionist procedural maneuvers before the lame duck session. The moment this terrible deal was made, it has been set in stone.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Gavi's avatar

      I haven’t scrolled down yet to see if this was already answered, but my goodness, you really don’t know anything about the senate, do you? Using your premise that if all the district court nominees included in the deal get confirmed, there is literally ZERO (0) chances that Schumer, with or without Manchin & Sinema, would then bring up the 4 CA nominees. Zero.

      The only way Schumer would bring up any of the 4 is if Republicans decided for some inexplicable reason to prevent/delay any of the agreed upon district court nominees from getting a vote. Then Schumer could claim that the agreement was void.

      So yeah, as the deal now stands (and I’ve been out of the loop and have no idea what has happened last night or this morning so far), even when all the NAY Dems and half the Republicans are out of town, Schumer will literally not bring up any of the 4.

      He tied his own hands with this travesty and no number of absent senators are going to help him untie it.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Rick's avatar

    I truly think Manchin has some sort of personality disorder. In the first 2 years of the Biden admin, he voted for all nominees, incl some controversial ones like Jennifer Sung, Arianna Freeman, and Eunice Lee.

    Then in 2023 and thereafter, he demands that nominees have at least one GOP AYE vote. Then he changed his mind for the Ritz nomination, but it was for that nominee only. THEN, he was open to voting for nominees without GOP support. THEN he goes back to attention whoring self where he won’t support the 4 remaining Circuit Court nominees.

    Good riddance to him and Sinema.. Maybe they’ll go work for Elon Musk for a large payday

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thomas's avatar

      OK, everybody here is convinced that the prospects of confirming these four circuit court nominees was and still is excellent, either by convincing/blackmailing Manchin and Sinema for a ‘aye’-vote or using absences of GOP Senators etc., so why they haven’t already been confirmed weeks or months ago, Schumer claiming that he has not the votes, the Senate Democrats let the chance to bring four more liberals on the appellate courts before Trump will return to the White House?

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Joe's avatar

    To be honest I think people overanalyze Manchin too much. He’s just a very conservative Democrat. Even though he’s conservative, he’s largely a party man and when Democrats had a trifecta in 2021-22 he voted along party lines despite his reservations.

    Now that Democrats lost their ability to pass new laws, I think he lost interest in being a party man and started being an “independent”. I don’t know if he wants another crack at WV Governor or wants to make money lobbying or what. But I’d guess he just wants to keep his options open and WV is a blood red state.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Joe's avatar

    Theoretically yes. But, hearings are (by tradition) supposed to be 28 days from the announcement. Since Weinstein was announced on a Friday, the earliest would be December 6. My guess is she either doesn’t get a hearing or they have one on December 11. Not sure how she would get voted out of committee in time for a floor vote; especially given that Senate Dems seem to be willing to capitulate for the sake of heading home early.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Mike's avatar

    Schumer filing cloture on the 5 eligible district court judges nails the coffin shut, their deal with the GOP is rock solid and they’re gift wrapping 4 circuit court seats for Trump as a housewarming gift.

    So, just to be clear, they couldn’t confirm FOUR circuit court seats with the nominees they had within their own party and the White House just…did nothing for months and years?

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Mike's avatar

    Anne Hwang confirmed and they’re voting to confirm Murphy, it’s soooo annoying watching the senators immediately walk away as soon as they’re needed for a new vote.

    If there’s a single judicial vote that Dems don’t drag out to an hour over the next 4 years I’m gonna lose my mind.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I will repeat for those of you that missed it the numerous times I have said it on this very blog. Republicans are about to show you what you do with power when you have it. Let’s review what Republicans have done in the MINORITY since the lame duck;

      1. Non senators including a Republican governor from Florida blasted Republican senators for not showing up for votes. This resulted in all 49 Republicans showing up to the senate floor for votes right before the Thanksgiving recess.
      2. Republicans forced two extra votes for all clotures filed.
      3. Republicans negotiated the heist of the century in a “Deal” that would give them potentially FIVE circuit court vacancies to fill upon Trump taking office. Democrats didn’t even nominate anybody for one of those five.
      4. Republicans are already taking action against judges who rescind their retirement plans. It will gonowhere, but jsut the posture alone is a strong sybol.

      Again, this was all down while Republicans were in the MINORITY. Please watch the next four years so you can see what a real Party does when they are in the MAJORITY.

      Liked by 2 people

  13. Humanfault's avatar

    Not to be even more of a buzzkill right now or anything, but if I’m doing the math correctly it looks like even if Tali Farhadian Weinstein is confirmed alongside all the other currently confirmable nominees (Excluding Kanter, Jackson, Shaw-Wilder, and Netburn) Biden won’t even have surpassed Trump’s first term Article III Judicial confirmations. He’d instead be tied with him at 234 confirmations each.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Lillie's avatar

    Here is to hoping that judicial counsel looks after their own and doesn’t sanction judges for rescinding.

    Also, the two women in the Western district of North Carolina show a firm date of senior status as of 12/31, so not sure since they have a firm date if they could or would revoke that.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Zack's avatar

    @Dequan,
    I agree for the most part but the thing is Republicans don’t have people like Manchin/Sinema gumming up the works.
    IMO, the biggest fail with Schumer was not telling Sinema that if she wanted her friend Desai to get a vote, she needed to relent on other nominees.
    Didn’t happen so here we are.

    Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        I could answer @Gavi’s last question but not without cursing. It’s truly irritating how Democrats are handling their last few weeks in power. The Schumer schedule post election loss alone is a good reason as to why this Democrat senate doesn’t deserve to be in the majority.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Rick's avatar

        I think they could schedule additional votes later tonight, no? Monday nights is usually one vote, but Murphy for the District court of MA was also confirmed yesterday. So they could add votes later, and I’m sure there will be more Wed and Thurs.

        I’m more concerned with the SDNY nominee Weinstein getting thru the process. I mean, we’ve already had the circuit court fiasco, now might screw up back to back SDNY nominees. What an ending to the Biden admin.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Gavi's avatar

        Like I said earlier, they’ve already screwed up the Gaston and Kanter back-to-back nominations on SDCA in the middle of the session when there was no adjournment or transfer of powers pressures, I see no reason to think that they can’t screw up back-to-back noms on SDNY in the waning days of their majority.
        I would say thank goodness for blue slip, but as Trump 1.0 showed us, the NY Dem senators will let him get away with murder, so as long as it’s not high body count mass murder, when making nominations on the district courts here.

        Liked by 1 person

  18. Joe's avatar

    It’s possible there may be additional votes like last night. My guess is that given the cloture motions yesterday, they’d like to get through as many of the 10 district judges on the floor this week if they can.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Joe's avatar

      Despite all my quibbles with his public melodrama and his no votes on some nominees, Joe Manchin will be sorely missed as a senator from West Virginia. It’ll be 50 years before we get a senator from that state better than him.

      Can’t say the same about Sinema and a few others in the caucus. To say nothing of the losable races that have been lost in swing states. We can do better there.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Rick's avatar

        Good riddance to Joe Manchin

        I miss Sen Jay Rockefeller, (D-WV). He won his last election in 2008 then the state has gotten redder each year thereafter. Yes, Manchin was best we could have hoped for in the WV that exists now, but him helping to tank FOUR circuit nominees is unforgivable

        Liked by 3 people

  20. Joe's avatar

    Yes, I certainly hold that against him, given the circumstances. If he was running for re election in say 2026 I’d be a little more forgiving. But he was on his way out. Why not go out in style and get these across the finish line?

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Joe's avatar

    Unfortunately, no, not surprised. I’ve been a bit puzzled by this one since the jump.

    They should have tried to squeeze her in this week anyway and seen if they could have used her nomination as a bargaining chip. Hell, they should still give her a hearing next Tuesday and see what happens. Why not try and use every tool they have available? But, as we’ve seen, Schumer and Durbin aren’t thinking that way.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Mike's avatar

    So during Trumps, ugh, FIRST term, I read an article saying how Dems need their own version of the FedSoc network set up to basically set up a waiting list of like minded conservatives to become judges when the GOP is in power.

    Some people interviewed mentioned that while there’s no liberal version of FedSoc there’s numerous liberal and activist nonprofit law groups can and do each recommend nominees when Dems are in power.

    I know folks here were very happy for a few years with the variety of non conventional nominees Biden was confirming before they went back to the state prosecutor template as the election was nearing.

    For folks that know a lot more about the nominees than I ever did, did/do you feel like Dems confirmed a good chunk of judges that their base would like the way the GOP always does?

    I don’t remember anyone being over the moon about any nominees this year but maybe I missed a few.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. tsb1991's avatar

    With Weilheimer confirmed the EDPA is fully seated, although I can’t imagine that lasting too long since the remaining three Bush appointees should be eligible for senior status, in addition to some of the older Obama appointees.

    Which also, how are there two Trump appointees on that court nearing 70 when most of Trump’s appointees were fresh out of middle school graduation? Was there some negotiation by Bob Casey to confirm conservative but not Federalist-Society level of bad nominees or were those his nominees in package deals?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      @tsb1991

      Judge Chad Kenney was appointed to a lower state court inn 2003 by Democratic Governor Ed Rendell. John Milton Younge is an outright Democrat. Since Pennsylvania was (And a month from now will be again) a purple state, Trump agreed to them as part of a package deal so the older the better in that case.

      Like

  27. Mike's avatar

    So here I’ve been thinking, well at least any blue state vacancies that haven’t already been filled will be safe in the next four years if the blue slip holds. Worst case, Dems do one for them one of us package deals if a lot of them open up.

    Then I’m updating the judicial wiki and come across Trump nominee for NY John Cronan, who somehow got both blue slips returned from Chuck and Kristen and then they both voted against him…

    Anyone remember this, is there a reason NY Dem senators let this 44 year old become a lifetime judge?

    Is this the the next four years, Dems just handing in their blue slips for no apparent reason because what, they didn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings in the senate?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Gavi's avatar

      Like I said above a few hours ago:

      “I would say thank goodness for blue slip, but as Trump 1.0 showed us, the NY Dem senators will let him get away with murder, so as long as it’s not high body count mass murder, when making nominations on the district courts here.”

      We shouldn’t be surprise that this will continue into Trump 2.0. Schumer doesn’t know how to use power when he’s in the majority, how the heck will he know how to do so in the minority? I must be going crazy. How’s everyone not aware of how awful Schumer and Dems are on judges?? Even after the circuit court giveaway people are still hedging on Schumer/Dems being effective on judges? But then again, look at the NY senators’ Dem president’s picks. If they are making those recommendations with a same-party WH, what do you think they’ll do when Republicans take over?

      How many other majority leaders do you know who’ve had their home state judicial recommendations stalled or failed in their chambers?

      We seriously need to wake up and stop being so shocked all the time.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Gavi is spot on. Folks are talking about Democrats playing hardball when Trump is in office. Folks, Democrats are in the MAJORITY until January 3rd. They can’t confirm Mangi. They can’t confirm Park. They can’t put up a nominee for Jordan’s seat. They can’t confirm Campbell. They can’t confirm Lipez. They can’t even get a hearing for Weinstein.

        Why would anybody in their right mind think THIS Democrat Party is gonna fight harder when Trump is in power than they are now when they have the majority in the senate & Biden is president. People we have to be realistic. The next 4 years is gonna be bad, REAL BAD for the judiciary. We may see nominees that have us begging for Chad Meredith. And what will Democrat s do? Probably agree to another package voice vote so they can leave on time for vacation.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ryan J's avatar

        Do you think that there are Democrat senators who tried to stop this “deal” and could lead the fight against Trump judges? Durbin’s already shown how he is as a leader, but how do we know that Whitehouse or Klobuchar wouldn’t be just as bad or almost as bad? Durbin was an upgrade from Leahy but he could have done a lot better than he did.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        The only Democrat senator I have seen public comments against this “deal” is senator Hirono. I am sure there are others, but no others have come forward publicly.

        But here’s the thing. If you have the right leadership, they wouldn’t have to. Because Mangi, Lipez & Campbell would have all gotten a vote during the time Republicans were down two senators. Park wasn’t voted out of the SJC yet but at least you would only have one to worry about during the lame duck.

        Liked by 1 person

  29. Zack's avatar

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Democratic voters including progressives have made clear with their voting patterns that the courts aren’t a issue for them most of the time, especially in 2016 AND 2000 when many of them voted third party or stayed home.
    Even in 2022 with Dobbs, many parts of the Democratic base sat out in WI and NC which cost us in Senate races which is why Manchin and Sinema (despite them being the reasons we had a majority and were able to confirm judges) have been able to tank nominees at the end.
    And when they did fight back with the nuclear option in 2013 or against Judge Kavanaugh in 2018, it still wasn’t enough for many.
    And don’t even get me started on how issues like Gaza etc. had people voting third party too while Republicans didn’t.
    When you show again and again you don’t care about the courts at the ballot box, you can’t get angry when the leaders of your party etc. feel the same way.
    Am I happy about the circuit court seats we’ll lose?
    Nope but I’m not shocked, especially after the election last month.
    We are the exception and not the rule in caring about the courts.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      It honestly doesn’t make sense. The vast majority of current Dem appointed judges are to the left of the president who appointed them — liberal judges often make rulings in favor of progressive causes, even when Democratic leaders oppose such rulings. I’ll name just a few examples below

      -liberal judges on the 9th circuit (led by Marsha Berzon) ruled that Obama using the NSA to spy on Americans is illegal
      – Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan multiple times tried to stop Merrick Garland from deporting people w/o due process (though Garland may have agreed with them if he were a justice rather than AG)
      – liberal judges have ruled that we have a right to record police officers
      – while Biden had to go through a long process to revoke Trump rules, some of those Trump rules were blocked due to court injunctions in the meantime

      Liked by 1 person

  30. Zack's avatar

    @Dequan,
    I’m sure Manchin/Sinema likely said if votes were done while some folks were out they’d be pricks on further votes down the line.
    It just shows how much not winning in WI in 2022 or NC in 2020 or 2022 hurt us.
    We wouldn’t have had some of the judges we got without either of them but man, did they screw us in the end.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Joe's avatar

      Regarding Lipez, I wonder if Collins was holding up that vote until after the election. She votes with Democrats a lot so Schumer was probably deferential to her.

      Campbell is the one that absolutely should’ve been pushed through I. September. As a former labor attorney it would’ve been easy for any D to defend their vote for her.

      Like

    • Frank's avatar

      I don’t think that would’ve made any difference. Other moderates would’ve joined in with Manchin and Sinema. The only reason why we don’t know about it is because they weren’t needed as opposition votes.

      Even if the Democrats won those elections, Mangi wouldn’t have had the votes to be confirmed, seeing as the NV senators publicly opposed his nomination (and likely more did behind the scenes).

      Liked by 1 person

  31. Joe's avatar

    The Business Meeting for tomorrow has been cancelled. Presumably because it would’ve been a holdover date anyway. I would hope that Cheeks and Murillo will still get voted out December 12, but I would not be surprised if they get left on the floor either given everything we’ve seen.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      The chances that Murillo and Cheeks get confirmed before the end of the year is now about the same as the chances that humans invent flying magic before the end of the year. Schiff is scheduled to be sworn in on Dec. 9, and because of the stupid judiciary committee rules, the Dems can’t name a replacement without GOP approval (which they will not give).

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Joe

        Thanks for adding to the daily addition of Democrats screwing up the lame duck. It was almost 4pm & I was afraid we were gonna go a whole day without a new addition but you are right on time.

        So now on top of everything else, we now have to hope Republicans are nice & let Butler be replaced on the SJC so Democrats can confirm two more liberal judges. I’m sure they will be thrilled to do just that. And that’s all because of a state law mandating Schiff take office on the 9th instead of Friday the 13th so they can hold the executive meeting on Thursday the 12th? Oh & let me guess, Schumer didn’t foresee this so he didn’t bother to include it in the deal… I’m sorry I mean “deal” (I refuse to write that word without quotation marks around it).

        I swear if you paid me a million dollars on November 4th to write a script on how to f*ck up a lame duck I would have had to return every single dollar. There’s no way on God’s green Earth I could have written a better script than this sh*t show of a lame duck.

        Like

  32. Joe's avatar

    Sounds like the Senate is moving to Brindisi and Coombs this afternoon.

    Final confirmation for Dixon and Wise appear to be on hold, at least in the immediate term. Hopefully they just push them through tomorrow. Sinema was a yes for both and Manchin was absent for cloture votes.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Joe's avatar

    I may be reading too much into it. Vance is not in DC so even if Manchin insists on voting (he’s been skipping a lot lately) and votes no then they’d still carry it 49-48.

    Maybe they just want to save them for whatever reason (like a slow day next week).

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Zack's avatar

    Sadly, Mangi’s case is one where Democrats worrying about where identity politics DID come into play to our detriment.
    I get wanting to have the first Muslim nominee on the 3rd Circuit and not wanting to give in to the vile Islamphobic smears we saw but once the stuff on the criminal justice reform groups came out, that was game over and his nomination should have been withdrawn, especially when it was made clear senators beyond Manchin/Sinema were opposed to him.
    For all the talk of Kent Jordan etc. this is the seat where the ball was truly dropped and for no reason.
    Fighting for Mangi didn’t help us with Muslim voters angry about Gaza/social issues and Jacky Rosen contrary to what some thought on here didn’t face any pushback for this or Edleman among others
    Many folks aren’t as liberal on criminal justice issues as we want them to be and that was something else some folks refused to accept with Mangi and others.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Mike's avatar

    So all the votes this week I keep seeing 50-48 votes with Sinema out and Vance out.

    I hate to beat a dead horse but would it really have been that hard to do this for the circuit nominees even if Vance was spending all day in the senate instead of prepping to be VP in 6 weeks?

    Outside Manji are they saying Manchin would’ve been a No on all of them? Harris is ready if they need her, I just don’t believe their reasoning to be honest.

    I think the Senate Dems just didn’t want to fight.

    Liked by 1 person

    • tsb1991's avatar

      The biggest mystery for me is that I thought several of the judges confirmed during the lame duck were going to be more difficult to confirm than the remaining appeals court nominees, specifically Kasubhai, Russell, and now Brindisi (and probably Ali and Sooknanan).

      Not only that but every judge confirmed this week has had Manchin’s support, despite all but one of them (Hwang) having no Republican support. Was some deal struck that he’d vote for the remaining district nominees but not the appeals court nominees? Can’t we send him and Sinema home for the holidays so you can have a 49-49 Senate confirm the remaining appeals court nominees with Harris breaking ties?

      If I remember with Kasubhai as well, he was setup for a cloture vote over the summer but was pulled due to attendance, I believe the attendance breakdown the day of the cancelled vote was 48D-47R (Manchin in attendance and Sinema out), so that would have implied he was a no on Kasubhai at the time, but Manchin ended up voting for him last month.

      This also will be the most naive thing anyone will ever post here but the deal to not confirm any more appeals court judges would have been slightly less bad if there were assurances that blue slips would be honored for the two Third Circuit seats and the First Circuit seat. I have minimal faith in Collins pushing back on whatever Federalist Society hack Trump will nominate to that seat but I wonder what her relationship is with Angus King and if she’d want his support on any nominee going forward.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Joe's avatar

        I’m not sure on the first circuit seat. I have a feeling Collins will probably recommend someone fairly mainstream and, if so, I’d bet the Trump WH probably goes with it.

        The two 3rd circuit seats I expect to be filled with hacks, unfortunately.

        Hopefully Stranch and Wynn reverse their retirements and we can live to fight another day.

        Liked by 2 people

      • lilee2122's avatar

        I would love to see Stranch rescind and the look on Blackburns face when she found out…To me the two 3rd circuit seats not filled and lost is the worst debacle of this senate this session….Let’s not forget the numerous Wash dc superior judicial nominees needing confirmation this month…..

        Liked by 1 person

  37. Joe's avatar

    I agree, they just didn’t want the fight.

    With Park and Mangi, I think there might be multiple D votes against (which is still BS, but it is what it is).

    With Lipez, I think she’d have been comfortably confirmed had Harris won. But now, Collins probably wants her own pick there and Democrats are probably trying very hard to play nice with her.

    With Campbell, I’m not sure what the deal is. To me, this is the biggest disappointment among the four because I regard her quite highly and she seems to have little controversy besides that one group she worked with. This one seems to me like it could have been done in September with no pushback to senators.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Gavi's avatar

        @Frank

        Do you ever have a good opinion of Biden judges in general, outside of the abstract concept of professional diversity? Or do you buy it hook line and sinker that they are controversial when Republicans make them out to be? You’re like the opposite of Joe, who never sees a Dem appointee he didn’t like. The fact that you’ll be able to name Bloomekatz and maybe 1 or 2 others are the exceptions that prove the rule? I hope you’ll be pleased with the judges that Trump will put forward soon.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Frank's avatar

        I liked KBJ being nominated to SCOTUS. For circuit courts, while not an exclusive list, my favorites were Perez on the 2nd, Heytens on the 4th, Sung on the 9th, Montecalvo and Rikelman on the 1st, Freeman on the 3rd, Abudu on the 11th, along with Rossman on the 10th. For district courts, two of the names that immediately come to mind for me are Nina Morrison and Ana Reyes but there are certainly several others as well.

        Liked by 1 person

  39. Joe's avatar

    I watched part of it at the time. Don’t really remember anything that stood out to me that was particularly controversial other than her affiliation with Workers Dignity. Pretty minor stuff.

    I don’t think any Democrat would have lost a single vote over supporting her nomination, so it’s frustrating to me that she got left on the chopping block. I just hope Stranch remains on the bench so that Blackburn and Hagerty don’t go hog wild.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. tsb1991's avatar

    Collins a yes on Coombe, so at least there’s some wiggle room on that nomination, the vote came after what I’m sure looked to be a lobbying chat from Gillibrand.

    Murkowski also a yes, her first vote for a lame duck judge outside of Desai.

    Liked by 1 person

  41. tsb1991's avatar

    According to the fedjudges Twitter account, I guess there are currently no vacancies on any district court under the 3rd Circuit (although there is still a MDPA nominee with a pending confirmation) since 1984. That comes as a bit of a surprise, but the last two years we’ve had a Democratic president, Senate, and each state under the 3rd Circuit with two Democratic Senators so filling those vacancies wouldn’t have been an issue.

    I believe the last time you had the above combination (D President, Senate, two D Senators in DE/NJ/PA) was in 2009/2010 after the Arlen Specter party switch, but I know during 09/10 judges were far less of a priority for Obama/Congress and moreso on his legislative agenda.

    Would have to imagine the courts with the most turnover would be the DNJ and EDPA under the 3rd Circuit, and given the time periods between the 80s and now where control of the White House/Senate was split and those states sometimes having Senators of a different party than the President, keeping those courts fully staffed was far more difficult.

    We did come pretty close to having every district court under the 2nd Circuit fully staffed, but it looks like it won’t happen due to the SDNY (I believe the 2nd and 3rd circuit states are the only groups of states with Senators all of the same party as the Presidency and the Senate Majority party).

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Joe's avatar

    Davenport has been confirmed.

    Looks like the two other votes today will both be cloture votes, so we’ll go into next week with just four more district nominees that only require confirmation votes.

    Murillo and Cheeks should get voted out of committee next Thursday, so potentially six more.

    Man, this would all feel really good if I knew next week was going to be dedicated to pushing through at least some of the appellate nominees.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. Joe's avatar

    Hmmm, that’s a good point. They would need to reorganize, assuming it’s a party line vote.

    In any event, Schumer wouldn’t be able to file cloture until Monday, Dec 16 with the earliest vote at Wed, Dec 18. At this point it’s definitely not 100% that those two make it across the finish line.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mike's avatar

      “The Senate is scheduled to be in session for a whopping 179 days in 2025 compared to just 136 for the House. The Senate will have been in session for only 102 days in 2024. And the number of in-session days next year will surpass that of each year of the previous GOP Senate majority, from 2017 to 2020.”

      The Democratic work ethic was a joke.

      I guess the only thing I can say after this worst case scenario election is how grateful I am that the 2020 and 2022 elections kept 230+ lifetime judicial seats out of the FedSocs hands for another 10 – 20 years.

      It sounds like the GOP will have plenty of time to confirm any and all judges they want so every filled vacancy is a miracle. Too bad about the DC superior courts.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Bravo. Good job Republicans. This is what real leadership looks like. I can guaran-damn-tee you they won’t have four circuit court nominees waiting around to be confirmed until after the next presidential election in hopes they get confirmed & a fifth without a nominee. I keep telling you all Republicans are about to show you what to do when you have power.

      Liked by 2 people

  48. tsb1991's avatar

    We probably won’t but if we get any cloture motions out today, I’m hoping we could at least get the local DC judges through. The court is strained enough as-is, and given the low priority the Senate gives these nominations, if they’re unfilled now they’ll probably remain unfilled for at least another year. Not sure how ideological these nominees tend to be but I’m sure whoever’s on the calendar now will beat out whoever Trump would nominate. I think we’re caught up with cloture motions and votes on the district judges for now.

    Also at the Senate calendar for 2025, I’ll believe the Friday session days when I see them (although they’ll probably be in some Fridays early on for cabinet confirmations), but the biggest thing for me is that the only Mondays they’ve given themselves off are Mondays that fall on holidays, so none of these artificial 3-week days. The reconciliation bills will probably sail through the Senate given their nice 53-seat majority (man would that have been nice to have the last few years especially for judges), the bigger challenge would be getting it through the House, which has finalized at 220R-215D, and I believe 217R-215D if you count the vacancies from Trump cabinet appointments.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mike's avatar

      Not a single cloture submitted, Chuck might have literally forgot about those 8 nominees when he made the deal to give away 4 circuit nominees so they can…just have the regular cloture and confirmation votes they were having anyway.

      I still don’t understand this deal, I need someone to explain the deal to me. Like OK, you somehow don’t have the votes in a 51 seat majority plus the VP to confirm 4 circuit nominees and the GOP puts on a big show of course to make you spend 6 hours lining up 8 nominees.

      Ok, well you set up the nominees, worst case if they do it again it’s less than 6 hours of your day, not like these Senators now have someone else to do since they won or lost their elections. Why wouldn’t the deal be voice voice or not cloture votes or a vote a roma for DC nominees?

      I NEED someone to explain to me what exactly Dems got in return cause all I’m seeing is regular order 50-48 votes needing a FULL day to confirm 2 district judges.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        Oh sure, I can explain the deal. The Democrat leadership in the senate is lazy. They had 7 weeks of the lame duck & with 2 of those 7 weeks left, they haven’t worked past Thursday 5pm any week yet. This “deal” is solely because they are lazy. Mangi maybe the only nominee that wouldn’t have been confirmed if they played hardball & I’m sure a majority leader Harry Reid would have worked something out so Manchin & Sinema would have taken a hike for that vote. Yes it would have taken two extra votes per nominee but as you said, what else do they have to do. They are about to be in the minority in less than a month. It would have been worth every minute to confirm 4 circuit court nominees.

        Hell I wouldn’t even had been as mad if the “deal” was only not to confirm Mangi. This isn’t a deal. It’s the heist of the century. And it’s all because Democrats in the senate are lazy as f*ck. But as we saw from the earlier post about the Republicans 2025 senate schedule, it doesn’t have to be that way. And to their credit, it won’t be that way for much longer.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Joe's avatar

        I think the only way the DC Court nominees get confirmed is if there’s some kind of package deal to voice vote a bunch of low level nominees (including picks preferred by GOP senators). But I’d put the odds of that very low given what we’ve seen so far.

        Liked by 1 person

  49. Zack's avatar

    @Dequan, I’m angry at Senate Democrats but as I’ve said before, the blame goes beyond them.
    Again and again, our side’s voters have shown the courts don’t matter to them like it does with Republicans.
    Given that, why are we shocked they have the attitude they do?
    I will say this though, Schumer with this deal showed as much stupidity as Leahy did clinging to blue slips for Circuit Court seats.
    Once again, Republicans are going to be gifted Circuit court seats they have no business having but most folks on our side won’t know or care about it..until it’s too late.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      The voters are certainly to blame for what happens from January 20th going forward. I don’t argue that. My argument is the voters put Democrats in charge of the senate until January 3rd & Joe Biden until January 20th. It is soley up to them to get nominees for every circuit court & blue state district court vacancy. They failed. Then it’s up to the senate leadership to at least get a vote for each of those nominees. They failed again. So I definitely will place the blame on the voters for what’s about to happen. But Democrats are in the majority now & acting like they are in the minority. That’s soley on them.

      We can’t act like if the situation was reversed, a senate led by McConnell or Thune would leave 4 circuit court nominees without getting a vote. How do we know? Because the last time the situation was reversed a 1st Circuit court judge died October 26, 2020. Trump named Raúl M. Arias-Marxuach AFTER the election & Republicans even scheduled a hearing for him on December 16, 2020. He wasn’t confirmed because they ran out of time, not for a lack of trying & sure as sh*t not because of some horrible deal.

      Like

    • Mike's avatar

      I really don’t get this argument because 1. multiple groups like Demand Justice and the ACS have blasted the agreement and 2. it implies that if regular voters aren’t calling their senators and saying “hey can you work one Friday to confirm judges” then the senators themselves are too lazy and too stupid to know that confirming judges is important.

      The whole point of electing representatives is for them to focus on these issues for a living so that democratic voters don’t have to.

      I mean, am I crazy for believing that if WE are on this forum understand how important this is then so should United States Senators, some of whom have been doing this for decades, that have seen the consequences of the rightward swing in our judicial branch.

      Like really, I’m supposed to believe during their weekly conferences Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren hasn’t told them that Judges are important? I mean if you really think calling my senator Sinema will change her mind and get her to vote for those circuit judges then I’ll happily do it but I’m pretty sure she doesn’t give a **** what democratic Arizona voters have to say anymore and hasn’t in a while.

      Liked by 2 people

  50. Mike's avatar

    Oh man, the judicial wiki has been updated to DJT 1 to get it ready for all the judges he’ll confirm in his second term.

    This is going to be a long four years.

    If I knew what is good for me I’d avoid this place until Dems take back the Senate or WH but against my better judgement I’ll be back to see the pipeline of ready to go FedSoc hacks the GOP will soon start confirming.

    Least we can be angry and miserable together.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Rick's avatar

      I’ll be tuning out politics when the next admin takes over. I’ll never watch SJC hearings anymore. Yeah, I’ll check the Wikipedia page and see all the awful judges that will be confirmed 53-47 time and time again but forget watching the Wed nomination hearings and Thurs Business meetings.

      As you said Mike, going to be long 4 years. There is almost no chance Democrats take back senate in 2026, that would take winning 4 seats. And for that to happen, Trump would have to be hovering around a 25% approval rating and the country is so fed up with Republicans that they punish them in the 2026 midterms

      Liked by 2 people

    • Gavi's avatar

      “Least we can be angry and miserable together.”

      Speak for yourself. I don’t plan to inflict unnecessary anger and misery on myself for 4 long years. I’ll be avoiding these spaces. The Trump presidency will be so all-consuming that I don’t intend to give it even more ways into my life. I won’t be able to help the occasional judicial news breaks, but I won’t seek them out. It’s peace out after Jan 20.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a reply to Zack Cancel reply