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.

1,480 Comments

  1. 39wimpyclues's avatar

    Just found out there’s a supreme court election as well in Georgia. Two progressive challengers, Miracle Rankin and Jen Jordan, against two Republican-appointed justices

    Honestly, with the lack of polling and the fact that Georgia Dems shockingly overpowered in last year’s Public Service Commission elections, this race could also be a sleeper hit for Dems

    Also if anyone’s knowledgeable enough bout the Georgia Supreme Court, what is its ideological balance? Based on Wikipedia, it’s 8 Republican-appointed justices and 1 independent justice but I know the justices won’t always match their appointing governor’s political party.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Mitch's avatar

    Today the SJC had its hearing and as expected, most of the Democrats’ attention was focused on Justin Smith, the nominee for the Eighth Circuit. The Democrats repeatedly brought up the 2020 election outcome, to the point that John Kennedy called them “ridiculous.” Smith promised that he would be independent of political pressure.

    Three nominees for the District Court in Kansas were also questioned, but they came out unscathed. Democrats forcused nearly all their attention on Smith.

    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-lawyer-nominated-for-appeals-court-pledges-independence

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      The Kansas nominees seem about as reasonable as you can expect in Trump 2.0. Justin Smith is a perfect example of why elections have consequences. Had Democrats held on in the senate race in Pennsylvania & won the senate races in Wisconsin & North Carolina, Smith wouldn’t even be an afterthought of being confirmed.

      Like

  3. Mitch's avatar

    The U.S. Senate just invoked cloture on the nomination of Andrew Bray of the Western Texas District. A notable aside- Susan Collins voted with the Democrats against this nomination.

    The SJC will be having a vote on some nominees on April 23,

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Yea, I’m on to Collins game. If her vote doesn’t matter, she votes against. If she is the deciding vote, she has “concerns” but the nominee has reassured her so she votes to confirm… Not buying it. Please vote her out in November Maine.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Ryan J's avatar

      Andrew Bray Davis is so bad that AFJ explicitly opposes his nomination. Davis defended Fox News for giving a platform to Trump’s election lies (which, ironically, involved admitting that MAGA is crazy by arguing that “no reasonable person” would believe the election lies).

      The one good thing about Davis’s confirmation is that the court will be fully staffed again, which will be a relief for the 95% of everyday trial court cases that aren’t politically motivated. With Davis’ confirmation, the divisions will look something like this:

      Austin: Pitman, Albright (formerly in Waco), Davis, Nowlin, Ezra
      Del Rio: Moses, Gonzalez
      El Paso: Cardone, Schydlower, Briones, Guaderrama
      Midland/Pecos: Counts
      San Antonio: Biery, Garcia, Rodriguez, Pulliam
      Waco: Wolfe

      The best place in WDTX for liberals to file would be either El Paso or San Antonio, while Midland/Pecos and Waco remain single-judge divisions with a Trump judge. Unclear how bad Counts and Wolfe are but Albright & Pulliam are actually not as bad as you would expect for a Trump judge in Texas (the worst ones seem to be located in the Northern & Eastern districts).

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Ryan J's avatar

    In other news, the abortion pill is back in the news. Judge David Joseph (W.D. Louisiana) is hearing a challenge to the 2023 FDA policy allowing the mailing of abortion pills. Joseph declined to block the 2023 policy for now, but hinted that he might in the future. He gave the Trump administration 6 months (starting April 7th, 2026) to detail the FDA’s next steps. It’s pretty clear that the Trump administration is trying to wait until after the midterms to deal with this issue, and I think that judges like David Joseph understand that.

    I dug into how cases are assigned there and found that the case could have been assigned to 4 judges (all Republican-appointed). David Joseph is no Kacsmaryk but he still is willing to put pressure on the Trump administration to ban the abortion pill, after the midterms if not now.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Zack Jones's avatar

    @Dequan

    Susan Collins has done this routine of pretending to be horrified by some nominees so she won’t vote for them going back to the W years with nominees like Bill Pryor.

    In every case though, the nominees had the votes to get confirmed.

    If a bad nominee needs the vote, she’ll provide it without fail but people think she’s a moderate anyway.

    Makes me sick.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. 39wimpyclues's avatar

    According to current reports Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are NOT retiring any time soon. And I’m not alone in hoping this ends up backfiring like RBG refusing to retire back in 2013

    May this motivates Democrats to get that desired 51-seat or even 52 seat majority this coming midterms lest far-right hacks like Matthew Kacsmaryk and Kathryn Kimball Mizelle end up replacing them

    Liked by 3 people

Leave a comment