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.

1,686 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

      • 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

  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 2 people

  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 2 people

  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

  16. Zack's avatar

    https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2026/06/08/federal-judge-tom-ludington-in-super-drunk-scandal-returns-to-court/90456143007/
    Yea, we’ve seen some bad behavior from federal judges the past couple of months but this is by far the most egregious and IMO does require impeachment and removal from the bench.

    Driving drunk is a choice to put other people at risk and the fact he was three and a half times the legal limit when he was arrested shows he is a seasoned drinker and it’s not likely the first time he got behind the wheel impaired.

    The fact he tried to keep it hidden and is treating his probation as a joke further drives the point home he is unfit for the bench.

    I know it would create a vacancy but there is a time where you have to put your foot down and this is one of those times.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Mike S.'s avatar

    Sad set of circumstances, particularly at his age. This is likely not the first time this has happened either. This story reminded me of Judge Patricia Minaldi, of the W.D. of LA, who struggled with alcoholism. I could see Judge Ludington, who is currently on a leave of absence, going inactive senior once this is resolved.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Mike S.'s avatar

    Here is a good article and summary of the case if anyone is interested:

    https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/15/high-court-denies-judge-newmans-case-against-cafc-chief-judge/

    What does this mean for Judge Newman? I think that this effectively ends her bid to be reinstated to the court (although, admittedly, that was a bit of a pipe dream to begin with). I suspect her administrative suspension will be renewed for another year. Time is not on her side, as she turns 99 this month. I hope she at least sticks it out until after the midterms…

    Liked by 2 people

  23. Mitch's avatar

    The U.S. Supreme Court just ruled in Abouammo vs. United States. It limits the power of prosecutors to pick and choose where trials are held. It requires that they prosecute crimes in the area where the crimes were committed in most circumstances. This will make it harder for prosecutors to forum shop.

    The ruling was 9-to-0, with Elena Kagan authorizing the ruling.

    Liked by 3 people

  25. Mitch's avatar

    @Dequan

    Bloomberg Law has an insightful article about who Trump might appoint to the Fifth Circuit to succeed Kurt Engelhart. Senator John Kennedy is in close touch with the White House Counsel’s Office. He has made it politiely but firmly clear that he wants a strong say in the choice. Here are the names most speculated on:

    J. Benjamin Aguinaga: Louisiana State Solicitor General, previously a lawyer for Jones Day. He’s also a former law clerk to Samuel Alito, former law clerk to Judge Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit, and former aide to U.S. Senator Ted Cruz.

    Anna St. John: U.S. District Court Judge for Eastern Lousiana, former General Counsel for the Hamilton Law Institute, former law clerk for Judge Rhesa Barksdale of the Fifth Circuit.

    James Baehr: General Counsel to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, former Special Counsel at the Pelican Institute for Public Policy, and a former White House aide. Clerked for Judge Edith Clement of the Fifth Circuit and is a Marine Corps veteran.

    All three are members of the Federalist Society.

    Here is a link to the article itself:

    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/louisianas-john-kennedy-plays-gatekeeper-on-fifth-circuit-pick

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Mitch's avatar

    There is a new development which cuts across party and ideological lines, but may have a dramatic impact on the Federal Judiciary. Yesterday, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee voted for the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act, which would allow television cameras in Federal Courtrooms, including the Supreme Court. Representatives of the Federal Courts sent a letter urging the committee to reject it. They say it could negatively imact trial fairness and courtroom security.

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Mitch's avatar

    There is a case involving retiring Judge MItchell Goldberg of the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania. He found that one of the attorneys at the Philadelphia D.A.’s office lied to him regarding the overturning of a death penalty case in which the perp was clearly guilty. That attorney has been suspended for three years from practing law in Federal Court. It’s suspected that D.A. Larry Krassner approved of it.

    Larry Krasner’s office has not been contesting any cases where defendants have requested new trials. In some cases, it’s been accused of withholding evidence and even lying about it. Krassner was accused of lying about the case of a married couple who was murdered over a minor debt, claiming the family of the victim wanted the death sentence overturned. In truth, only one distant relative did and he didn’t even reach out to other realatives.

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has denounced Krassner’s behavior and limited his ability to seek new trials for convicts contesting their convictions. It required that the state AG now oversees those cases. I don’t think this has ever happened before.

    Some groups pushed for Larry Krassner to be appointed to the Federal judiciary in the past.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. rob's avatar

    https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/a-sparkling-lame-duck-deal-on-judges/

    This is an interesting article from a former staffer of Mitch McConnell. It speaks about the deal that was done at the end of bidens term for given up circuit judges nominee for the district judges confirmation.

    While I don’t agree with the attacks on Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan in this article it’s interesting to read insight into the deal and what republicans actually thought at the time.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      The end of the second paragraph is the reason why Republicans got to fill the circuit court seats “Regardless, Schumer had a hard time with some of these judges (judges were never his priority anyway), and so they fell to the end of the Congress.”

      I know some will argue the reason is Manchin & Sinema but I call BS. Republicans had attendance issues on numerous occasions before the election. Hell, just based on Trump rally’s in red states alone were a clear indication of Republican attendance issues. I will never forgive Schumer for that “deal”. Republicans won’t have the same problem at the end of this year.

      Like

    • Thomas's avatar

      Although I don’t like the deal, Fragoso’s article is logical and understandable.

      My thoughts that time was how Schumer wants to get confirmed the same number of CoA judges within a few weeks than he had confirmed during the whole year 2024. So I don’t see how it could have worked that time, others here do, and blame Schumer and the Senate Democrats that they made the deal. And he had spared the most difficult decisions for the end, what we should also take in consideration, with the fact, that Mangi had not the votes, and no matter of Sinema, Manchin or attendance, the GOP had and will most probably have a more comfortable majority at the end of the Congress.

      Although I’m sorry for the nominees having missed a lifetime opportunity, 4 more CoA judges wouldn’t have changed the actual situation at the courts that much, we have other, more serious problems now.

      I just imagine how Senate Democrates have looked when they lost the cloture vote for three times and then the confirmation vote for three ones ones, then stating, that Lipiz has made it, Campbell, Park and all the district court judges are still waiting, while it is December 27 at midnight. The nation would have called them tremendous fools and their families would have been fuming that they are not home for Christmas.

      That time, the options were just bad, they had to try using Republican absences earlier in 2024 if possible, the assumption, that they will stay away and let them all pass in the end, is also naive, I thought Schumer had a plan, but then it became obvious, that he had none.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        The “deal” is only logical and understandable because we are talking about Democrats. Had that been Republicans, it would have been World War 3 before that “deal” would have been allowed to go through. I can assure you conservatives wouldn’t have given a damn about Republican senators’ family members fuming over them missing Christmas in order to prevent a soon to be President Harris, Newsom or fill in the blank from filling four circuit court seats. Had they Republicans gone home, there might have been angry mobs holding pitch forks waiting for them on their driveways.

        There is simply no justification for that “deal” (Yes, I intentionally keep putting it in quotation marks because I refuse to call it a deal) if you replace Schumer with Thune, liberals with conservatives or Democrats with Republicans. The math ain’t mathing. Too many days with a Republican senator out due to eye surgery (Over a month). Too many days with a Republican senator on the campaign trail because he was the Republican VP nominee. Too many days spending time on positions that can easily be dismissed & replaced on day one of the next administration instead of spending that time confirming lifetime federal judges that will uphold our rights for decades to come.

        I get it. We are talking about Democrats. The bar is low. But I refuse to accept that as an excuse to hand over (At that time) five circuit court seats. And I refuse to accept it because I am a Democrat & I damn sure know the other side wouldn’t accept it. They would have kept the senate in session until January 2nd confirming judges if need be. RBG died on September 18th of a presidential year. Republicans replaced both her & the circuit court judge that took her seat before Christmas. And that was after their president lost the election.

        Stop thinking things can’t be done. The relaity is Republicans are ruthless & don’t accept no for an answer. We will need a healthy dose of the results from New York City last night to get that same ruthlessness from Democrats. I am honestly not that far left on most issues, but I am when it comes to judges. And if it takes hard left progressives like the three elected last night in NYC to replace any Democrat senator who thought this was a good “deal”, then I am all for it.

        Like

    • Joe's avatar

      I’m still upset over the deal to be honest. It wasn’t a terrible idea, but I feel like we should have gotten one of Lipez or Campbell confirmed, at least.

      Hopefully he has learned his lesson and if a Dem president/senate majority happens again judges need to be prioritized as soon as they are voted out of committee and before opposition can harden.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        The “deal” wouldn’t have been as bad if they got Lipez & all Local DC judges included as well. But once again my point isn’t the “deal” itself. It’s all the time wasted the calendar year leading up to the “deal” when there were multiple weeks with Republican senators out.

        I’ve heard every excuse for the “deal” known to man on this blog. The only one that is even remotely good is senators up for reelection didn’t want to take tough votes before the November election. But even that excuse falls flat because Lipez, Kidd & some of the district court nominees could have been confirmed before the election. That way instead of Schumer teeing up Kidd in a surprise post election vote, he could have replaced him with Campbell. After she would have been confirmed, you just have Mangi & Park left, neither of whom probably would have been confirmed anyway. 

        Bottom line is “deals” like this one is what’s leading to results like we are seeing in New York & Colorado in the past few weeks. People are tired of excuses & politics of old. I’m honestly not that far left at all (Outside of judges) but I’m happy to see the Democrat Party establishment getting challenged & in some cases kicked out of office. They aren’t meeting the moment. This “deal” was just one glaring example of that for me. 

        Liked by 1 person

  30. Rick's avatar

    Democrats giving back the 4 Circuit court nominees to a Republican president is bad enough, but when that president is Donald Trump, one of the worst human beings in the history of civilization, it is especially grotesque

    Liked by 3 people

  31. Zack Jones's avatar

    The reality is us not winning Senate races in Wisconsin, Maine and North Carolina in 2020 and 2022 came back to bite us in the rear.

    Yes, there were times we had fewer Republicans in session but Manchin/Sinema have made clear if Schumer tried that other nominees wouldn’t get through so it was pick your poison, as you couldn’t really threaten them.
    It’s where having a Senator Beasley or Barnes would have made a difference.

    Also, it doesn’t help that during election years, Democratic senators won’t take votes on some nominees until after the elections for fear it would cost them, and that is where Republicans ARE better about that.

    I know there were nominees that weren’t voted on because Tester/Casey etc. were afraid to take votes and it didn’t save them in the end anyway.

    It sucks what happened, especially since the McConnell staffers and Republicans can gloat but the reality is we just didn’t have the numbers in the end to get the last few nominees across the finish line, sucks that resulted in three flips.

    On the flip side, I will call out the failure with Mangi’s seat, it was clear he wouldn’t have the votes and he should have been withdrawn and someone else put in his place, as there was more then enough times with his seat, as there was with Wynn’s and trying to spin that deal as a positive is a crock.

    A circuit court seat matters more then district court ones any day of the week.

    Also, this is where Democratic voters have to be called out too.

    Republican voters show up rain or shine most of the time and in 2016, they CARED about control of SCOTUS, far too many Democratic voters including many progressives didn’t or in 2000 for that matter or 2024 and that includes the DSA which won in NYC this past week.

    When you impose a purity test where you won’t vote while the other side will, that’s how you get the courts we have now.

    When voters of ALL parts of the party for the most part make clear judges aren’t a concern of theirs, you can’t be shocked that Democratic leaders act the same way.

    Liked by 2 people

  32. Mike S.'s avatar

    Just an update:

    There 29 current vacancies (that’s pretty low), with just 10 nominees announced.

    There are currently 13 future vacancies, and 4 of those have nominees announced, all of which are all circuit court seats.

    Time is starting to run out for announcing new nominees by end of year. Curious to see how many we get this summer.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thomas's avatar

      It’s not quite correct, because the US Court website is failing to catch up even with currently open vacancies, probably because of staff reduction.

      The number of current vacancies according to my count is 29 with 8 nominees remaining, after Marck and Hendershot will be transferrred to the confirmed list probably tomorrow, but not on it are Amanda Wright Allen (Western District of Virginia), went senior at May 13, and James D. Peterson (Western District of Wisconsin) went senior at May 16. The Federal Judicial Center is still covering everything correctly, but checking all more than 1.000 federal judges on a daily basis is something for AI.

      Future vacancies I count 15, minus Peterson as future vacancy, and plus Thomas Rice (Eastern District of Washington at December 15 2026), Alan Albright (Western District of Texas in August 2026), and Gregory van Tatenhove (Eastern District of Kentucky (?), probably in July 2026), 4 pending nominees are correct.

      There have still be inconsistencies in the past, but not that long and on active judges, too, and maybe I missed something else.

      But otherwise you are right, the pipeline for district judges seems to be dry now, with just bringing Byrne forward in the last six weeks, that is very few even they are more focused on circuit judges.

      Liked by 2 people

  33. Mitch's avatar

    Major rulings from the Supreme Court today.

    The Court ruled that individual states are allowed to count ballots received after election day if they’re clearly postmarked on election day.

    It ruled that the Trump Administration could not fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve.

    The Court also refused to get involved in the Jean Carroll defamation case.

    Liked by 3 people

  35. Mike S.'s avatar

    Two late night judicial nominations: Judge Ana St. John (E.D. La.) to the 5th Circ., and Justice Gregory Cook to the N.D. Ala.

    There were also two nominations to the US Sentencing Commission as well.

    You can read all about them (shivers down spine) on Truth Social!

    Liked by 2 people

  36. Mike S.'s avatar

    I agree with Dequan, she’s one of the better options we could have hoped for. I was concerned they were going to nominate J. Benjamin Aguiñaga, who is considerably younger and presumably more conservative.

    Putting Judge Duncan aside (who is awful), I think Sen. Kennedy has been pretty fair with judicial nominations, all things considered. His politics are not mine, but he does seem to prioritize experience over other factors, at least more so than other conservative senators.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Mike S.'s avatar

    I was worried when I saw Clarence Thomas at the Capitol yesterday that something was up… it seems like a human error. Unless, she had some advance notice, but it seems unlikely. Here is hoping to no surprise announcement in the next few weeks!

    Liked by 2 people

  40. Dequan's avatar

    It appears US Senator Michael Bennet will remain in the senate. He has lost his primate race for Colorado governor to Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser. He probably wishes he had recommended him to one of the over half dozen federal judicial vacancies Colorado had under Biden now… Lol

    Like

  41. Mitch's avatar

    Two more major rulings by SCOTUS.

    The big ruling upheld Birthright Citizenship. Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts cast the deciding votes, with Kavanaugh issuing a concurrent ruling.

    It ruled that indivdual states can ban biological males from female sports.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      Barrett & Roberts were the key votes in birthright citizenship. Kavanaugh partially dissented. So the vote was 6-3 that Trump can’t end birthright citizenship right now while 5-4 on the constitutional question of whether birthright citizenship is enshrined in the 14th amendment.

      Liked by 1 person

  42. Mike S.'s avatar

    No SCOTUS retirement announcements, and Trump has only had 12 circuit court seats to fill. That is incredibly lucky. I remain optimistic, and hopeful, that we can take back the Senate to prevent any further confirmations at these levels.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. Mitch's avatar

    U.S. Senate developemnt: it looks like Graham Platner is goind to drop out of the U.S. Senate race in Maine. He has until July 13 to do so. Party leaders are withdrawing endorsements after the latest accusation.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      I supported & even donated to Planter’s campaign. Unfortunately this seat is too vital to the future of our country. I think it’s time he steps aside, especially before the July 13th deadline, so we can get a candidate to defeat Collins.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Mike S.'s avatar

        Platner will withdraw shortly, which at this point is the right call. What about Jared Golden as a replacement?

        Also it appears that Mitch McConnell is on life support and likely not coming back anytime soon…

        Also, in random Kentucky related news, Judge Van Tatenhove was appointed Dean of the University of Kentucky law school. However, it is very unclear if he is leaving the bench, which is very odd to me…

        Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        Newsweek already has an article out with a list of possible Planter replacements. And I doubt we will see Senator McConnell ever vote again in the US senate. The bigger question to me is if he will remain the senator the rest of this term, reducing Republicans to 52, or will the seat become vacant before. If it becomes vacant, be on the lookout for a possible Thomas Massie run, which would absolutely delight me. 

        ***** https://www.newsweek.com/who-could-replace-graham-platner-in-maine-race-nine-possible-contenders-12163774***** 

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott Royce's avatar

        I sent Platner money, too, but–sadly–I agree that, barring some unexpected major development ASAP, he needs to exit the race.

        As for who should replace him, Golden would be my absolute last choice. The last thing needed in the Senate right now is another Joe Manchin-type character…

        Liked by 3 people

      • Mitch's avatar

        Word has it that Troy Jackson wants to run against Susan Collins now. He ran for Governor and almost won the primary.

        I think that Jared Golden would be the strongest candidate, but he might be unacceptable to progressives. More importantly, he shows no sign of being interested.

        Liked by 2 people

  46. Mike S.'s avatar

    Very shocking news. I thought it would have been Mitch McConnell, not Lindsey Graham. As probably many people do, I have mixed feelings about Graham. I don’t agree with most of his politics. He pretty much sold his soul to the MAGA movement. He was vey likely closeted and yet did not support most basic rights for gay people. He didn’t ever stand up to Trump on pretty much anything, and people like him are the reason the country is in the mess it is currently.

    That said, Graham wasn’t the worst of the Republican party, he was more reasonable on certain things than most conservative Republicans. The reality is that most judicial nominees would not have gotten out of committee timely had Graham not supported them during the first two years of Biden’s presidency, when the Senate was split 50/50. I give him a lot of credit in supporting most of Biden’s judicial nominees, when he certainly didn’t have to do so.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment