An End – And a Beginning

So it’s finally here.  After nearly eight years, and more than four hundred nominee profiles, it’s time to close the final chapter on the Vetting Room.  When I first started the Vetting Room eight years ago, I wrote my hopes that this blog would be a way to “inform the general public about candidates for the federal bench.”  I think we’ve succeeded in doing that.  I also hoped that, by providing “disinterested” commentary (in the sense that we’re not advocating for or against individual nominees), the Vetting Room could be a part of de-escalating confirmation tensions and supporting an apolitical judiciary.

Reflecting back, there is much to be proud of.  I never expected that a small legal blog started by a nobody with some assistance from his friends and associates would become one of the most widely searched resources on judicial nominees.  Furthermore, I’ve received messages of praise and support from prominent liberals and conservatives who have praised the tone and content of our write-ups.  Similarly, I’ve fielded angry messages and comments both from folks convinced that we’re secretly suppressing unfavorable information on nominees and from those accusing us of writing hit pieces, in one case, addressing a single article.  Needless to say, we must be doing something right.

I’m also thankful for all the support we’ve gotten, not just from the amazing attorneys who wrote for us, but also from attorneys and law students who helped with research, and from fellow legal bloggers and lawyers who shared, retweeted and commented on our posts.  I would note that Howard Bashman of How Appealing has been particularly generous with sharing our write-ups and with his support.

Given all this, one might wonder why the Vetting Room is shuttering.  Especially with an incoming Administration that is likely to push to reshape the judiciary in a more conservative direction, and likely to be the source of dozens, if not hundreds, of posts.  Well, see, that’s the thing.

Writing and managing a legal blog is not cost-less. Several hours of research, wordsmithing, and analysis go into each post, not just in how to frame each nominee’s background, but also in determining what information should or should not be included. Time spent here is time not spent with my family, or pursuing other passions and interests. Having kept up with the blog through four years of a Republican President and four years of a Democratic President, now seems like the right time to move on.

The Vetting Room is not being taken down, and the posts that are here will stay on (at least for the near future).  As time dictates, additional posts detailing the history of the judiciary (some of my favorite writing but ones I’ve had trouble keeping up with) may be added.

This is not to say that it is time to disengage from judicial nominations entirely. Our founding fathers intended for the confirmation process to include public review and input. In the end, all Americans have an interest in having a Judiciary that decides based on the rule of law, rather than ideology or partisanship. And I expect that vigilance in the process will not cease.

Perhaps, if other interested attorneys come forward who would want to carry the mantle for an apolitical judiciary, the Vetting Room may revive as such. Until then, I thank all the readers this blog has maintained for their support and encouragement, and hope that, in our own way, we’ve had a positive impact on the judicial nomination discourse.

1,628 Comments

  1. Dequan's avatar

    I’ve been binge watching movies over the past few days. Usually, I mix older movies I haven’t seen with new movies. I’m on my sixth movie watching Risky Business & you will never believe who was sitting behind Tom Cruise in the second to last scene of the movie in the restaurant… None other than a young Senator Dick Durbin.

    I know former Senator Patrick Leahy was in two of the Batman Dark Knight movies. In one move Keith Ledger (The Joker) held a knife to his throat when crashing Bruce Wayne’s party. He had an even quicker cameo as a board member when Bruce Wayne was kicked out of the meeting because he was no longer a member.

    Anybody else know movies where a UsS Senator has a cameo?

    Like

    • Ryan J's avatar

      For now, I think the Democrats should vote no. It appears that she had sex with a police officer, who is not one of her subordinates. I would think differently if the sexual encounter was with one of her law clerks or other subordinates.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I would vote no if I was in the senate but for different reasons. If Republicans are fine with a convicted sexual assaulter & 30 plus time felony being the most powerful person in our government, I’m sure as Hell not gonna bat an eye for anything that I’ve read about Judge Ross so far.

        We can’t keep having two different sets of rules. Al Franken can’t be a US Senator but Trump can be president??? Naaaa, miss me with that crap

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Mike S.'s avatar

    We have two nominees for the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which is the is the highest court in DC: James Crowell and Stuart G. Nash

    Both were recommended by the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission, so safe to say they should be within the mainstream. That also means that Trump has continued to play ball after threatening to disregard the bipartisan commission.  

    https://www.dcbar.org/news-events/news/jnc-recommends-candidates-for-court-of-appeals-vac

    Glad to see these seats are getting filled with consensus nominees recommended by the commission.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thomas's avatar

      The question here is just, when will the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hold a hearing for them, the last one except the one for Markwayne Mullin was in November 2025, more than half a year ago, while six nominees for the chronically understaffed Superior Court of DC are also waiting.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Mike S.'s avatar

    Not sure if anyone saw this earlier, but 5th Circ. Judge Kurt Engelhardt has announced he will assume senior status at the end of the year or upon confirmation of his successor.

    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-to-gain-new-fifth-circuit-seat-as-appointee-steps-back

    This is the twelfth circuit court judge to announce plans to go senior, and I believe there are roughly 18 other judges appointed by Republicans still hanging on. Hopefully, Englehardt is the last before the midterms. If Dems win back the Senate (big if), I do not anticipate they would confirm any more circuit judges under Trump, absent perhaps to the Federal Circuit.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      I wonder whether Allen has any health issues. Out of the judges who suddenly took senior status under Biden, most of them (Robert Katzmann, Peter Hall, Michael Juneau, Charles Norgle, Lynn Hughes, Wilhemina Wright) either had health issues and/or went inactive. However, Wright went senior the day after she became eligible, so maybe she just wanted to make it a little bit harder for Trump to fill a blue state seat by not announcing ahead of time.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Thomas's avatar

        I don’t believe that it was on short term or health issue, as she exactly left at the 15 anniversary of her commissioning.

        Additionally she would have been eligible for the post of the chief judge (at least 5 days before her 65 birthday), but as Lauck took over after Stevens’ term ended after seven years, it’s probable that she has relinquished due to the fact that she wanted to go senior less than six month later.

        So the US Courts Website has most likely simply forgot her.

        Court of Appeals of Veterans Claims judge William S. Greenburg has passed away at March 16, 2026, and there was no note, too, though this court is not covered on the website and probably nobody was interested in it, because it’s just a temporary seat with no replacement, the court itself has also not issued a press release.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. Ryan J's avatar

    There are 22 SCOTUS & circuit judges over 75. 6 are Democratic appointees while 16 are Republican appointees. 8 of the 22 are over 80 (older than Trump). The # of judges older than Trump (80) & the # of judges older than Clarence Thomas (78) (which I use as indicators of which judges are really old) decreased a lot from 2021-23, but has not changed since Ilana Rovner took senior status in July 2024, and before that, the more-or-less ouster of Pauline Newman in September 2023. While several circuit judges (including Benton) have turned 75 since then, Benton is the first over-75 circuit judge to go senior under Trump 2.0

    The 6 elder Democratic appointees are Timothy Dyk (89), Robert King (86), Ronald Gould (79), Eric Clay (78), Karen Moore (77), & Carl Stewart (76).

    The 16 elder Republican appointees roughly split into 4 categories:

    Reasonable moderates: Lourie (91), Milan Smith (84), Leslie Southwick (76)
    Conservative but occasionally go against MAGA judges: Henderson (81), Wilkinson (81), Easterbrook (77), Prost (75)
    Typical Republican judge: Loken (86), Niemeyer (85), Hartz (79), Callahan (76), Benton (75)
    Ultra-rightwing crazies: Jerry E. Smith (79), Thomas (78), Edith Jones (77), Alito (76)

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Ryan J's avatar

    Martin, Pozos, Colmenero, Mitchell, & Daniel Traynor all had their confirmation hearings yesterday. The 4 district judges seem qualified and intelligent, though still showing hints of being partisan; I would still oppose them but as a “no” rather than a “hell no” (I didn’t watch Traynor’s and I assume he’s a partisan hack, though I briefly read each SJQ and find it interesting that North Dakota has no application process for federal judicial seats).

    The 4 district judges were willing to admit to Blumenthal that Biden won the electoral vote in 2020 but were still a bit dodgy. Sen. Kennedy’s questioning style seemed a bit weird and I don’t know whether that’s his usual style. Mitchell answered well, though Pozos struggled. Kennedy was dissatisfied with both Pozos & Mitchell’s answers (about Section 230 and qualified immunity, respectively), though he kept telling Mitchell “please don’t take this personally, as I know you’re smart”. Cruz thanked Kennedy for not asking Texas nominees about some legal doctrine I’ve never heard of, and Kennedy joked “I was gonna get to that but I ran out of time”.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Zack Jones's avatar

    Trump has nothing to do with these judges, he is simply using a list given to him by the Federalist Society, a list that would been in play under any Republican president.
    He deserves no praise here at all.
    The other point folks have been making sadly stands true though, elections do have consequences and not just the WH.

    Our failure in some senate races over the years is why we had to let some Circuit court seats go at the end and why we couldn’t stop horrible nominees in some years.

    Why it makes me rip my hair out seeing the Senate race with a flawed candidate in Maine.

    NOW some folks care about the courts and not when Kamala and Hillary were running?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I am one of Trump’s biggest critics but the idea he deserves no credit for the conservative judiciary is just not accurate. Had Jeb Bush, Scott Walkler or any of those other uninspiring Republicans been the nominee in 2016, we likely would have gotten a President Hillary Clinton. The fact that Trump was able to run rough shot over polished & experienced politicians deserves credit. Then he was brilliant to release the list he guaranteed to pick from to replace Scalia, which many conservatives pointed to as their reason to vote for him despite how horrible of a human being he is.

      His defeat of Hillary is the reason he can get that list from the Federalist Society you are talking about. We don’t have to like somebody & certainly don’t have to agree with them to give credit where credit is due. Donald J. Trump is a horrible person & I think he is doing a horrible job as president, just like I did the first time he was in office. But I’m sorry, the judiciary is one area where he has kept his promises & hit the ball completely out of the ballpark in doing so. And he deserves all the credit in the world for that, despite me wishing it wasn’t the case.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. Mitch's avatar

    Next Thursday (June 18), the SJC will vote on six judicial nominations and one U.S. Attorney nominee. I think they’re clearing the clutter in preperation of Todd Blanche’s hearing for AG. Expect lots of fireworks and possible Republican defections.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Zack Jones's avatar

    @Dequan, I disagree.

    The minute Scalia died is the minute any Republican running would have won, Republicans cared about that SCOTUS seat, Democratic voters didn’t.

    As to releasing the list, credit his advisors, he wouldn’t know a list of liberal or conservative jurists if he was hit upside the head by one.

    The fact he’s attacked several of the judges put on the courts under him shows the fact he’s not the one calling the shots there, he’s a mere puppet.

    The bigger issue is the failure of the Democratic party as a whole to care about the courts.

    If they did, Hillary would have won before 10 PM., same with Kamala.

    That has nothing to do with Trump, and everything to do with the fact that over the past 50 years, the Democratic Party as a whole has dropped the ball on the judicial branch and continues to do so, and that comes from ALL wings of the party.

    I will say Trump used anti-immigration sentiment to win election twice, that he gets credit but on the courts, he has no clue what he’s doing and I’ll be darned if I praise him as some kind of genius on it.

    Going to have to be an area where we agree to disagree.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Well even though I don’t agree Trump doesn’t deserve credit for the courts (From a conservative’s viewpoint), you will get no argument from me about Democrats not caring enough about the courts. That we 1000% agree on. I think now they are getting serious about it, but a generation will suffer for being so far behind the 8-ball.

      Like

Leave a comment