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.

1,328 Comments

  7. Mike S.'s avatar

    Thank you, Harsh, for your valiant dedication to this blog, for your efforts to make the judicial nomination process more understandable to a wider audience, and for fostering a community that has blossomed here.

    Alright, Dequan, so what’s next? Here’s looking at you…

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Dequan's avatar

    Thank you Harsh. I wanted to wait all day to make sure I reply with the proper gratitude Harsh deserves. I can’t say thank you enough to Harsh for this terrific platform for those of us interested in the judiciary. As I’ve said before, ever since my first time voting here in Miami-Dade County didn’t count after the Bush v Gore SCOTUS ruling, I’ve always wanted to know more about the judiciary. As somebody who has never stepped foot inside of a law school, I looked for information about the judiciary through various outlets.

    Years back while looking for information on the judiciary, I somehow stumbled on The Vetting Room. I was stunned at all of the great information on each nominee. I remember my first time commenting, at that time there were only a few, if any comments on each post. Now look at what it has become. Each post has hundreds or even over a thousand comments. With some of the issue on Wikipedia, I truly feel this blog was becoming the go to platform for the judiciary.

    I loved all of my exchanges with other users on this blog. Myself & @Shawn probably had the most epic of clashes. I was saddened when he was absent for a few months, came back to inform us he was very sick & shortly after was gone for good. I fear he is no longer with us because he isn’t the type of person who could simply leave the blog willingly. After he left, many others have filled the void. I’ve enjoyed my clashes with @Gavi, @Frank & all that I usually agree with. Even during disagreement, I always tried to disagree without being disagreeable. I hope I succeeded in that.

    I truly love this blog so much, I gave alerts from it, its own ringtone on my phone. My coworkers would hear Rauw Alejandro – Curame, & joke that I have another comment on my blog… Lol

    About a year ago, my then-best feel-good moment on this blog was when one of the users name checked me & said they are in law school & reading my comments on this blog specifically, helped them get through some rough nights in law school. It was the first time it hit me what kind of impact this blog had on so many people.

    Surprisingly, the joy from that comment was quickly topped a couple of weeks later when I was sitting at my computer at work & got a surprise email. It was from Harsh. I actually thought it was spam until I opened & read it. It was Harsh letting me know he was personal friends with Amir Ali & didn’t feel he should write his article & asked me would I be interested in writing it. I was floored & honored to even be considered with all of the attorney’s I’m sure Harsh could have asked. I poured my heart & soul into writing the article just as I did the other two times I was asked for Embry Kidd & Ryan Park. To be honest, the only hard times I’ve had on this blog was the three times I wrote an article & made the personal decision not to comment on any of them.

    But as Harsh said, being in charge of this blog is time consuming. Harsh has earned the right & deserves to have as much time for his personal life & his family as he wishes. It is difficult to see something I love so much come to an end but Harsh truly deserves the best & if he feels this is the best decision to make his life better, I wish him nothing but the absolute best.

    I found The Vetting Room just looking through the internet for judiciary information. I will continue to look for such information. I’m sure I will find other outlets, but I doubt I will enjoy any as much as I do this one.

    So let me end with these three words I started with… THANK YOU HARSH

    Liked by 5 people

  10. Ethan's avatar

    Wow is all I can say. I can’t say I’m too surprised that Harsh no longer has time to work on the blog regularly given how long it’s been since there’s been a new post but I was a little surprised that the announcement came when it did. It was certainly a whirlwind of a day yesterday beginning with the news from Harsh and then the announcement that Jimmy Carter had died. Anyways, I may make a spreadsheet where we can put our contact info for those of us who want to keep in touch.

    As for moving to another blog, I’d love to start a new blog. My idea would be to have people from this site contribute, even if we don’t have a post for every single nominee. I was thinking something a long the lines of weekly recaps from @Anthony Myrlados and then @Dequan could continue his trend of recapping each hearing, but in a blog post. If I were to make a new blog, I would most likely put it on Beehiiv (a Substack competitors) since its comment section is better designed for threaded discussions than WordPress’s.

    If anyone else has ideas, shoot me an email at emenaker529@gmail.com. I was thinking of making a shared a Google Doc where those of us who want to keep in touch could put our e-mail addresses but I don’t know of a way to post a link here that isn’t public that anyone on the internet can find.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Mike's avatar

    Well, this is certainly a sad way to start my Monday.

    Thank you for creating this blog Harsh, it’s been the only place for the last 3 where I could follow judicial nominee/confirmation discussions and throw in my 2c once in a while. I’m sad to see it go but I’m glad it was here.

    While our contributions on nominees will wane in the coming months and years, I think having Vetting Room end completely is a big loss. If anyone here considers creating Judicial Vetting reddit page, I’d certainly like to stay in the loop.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Downeast Karen's avatar

    WOW! That’s certainly talking out of both sides of your mouth! You have been a shameless cheerleader for reverse racism and destructive anticonstitutional appointments by the Biden Harris regime for the last four years. You and your supporters have tirelessly screamed your support for America-haters, anti-white racists, and totalitarian authoritarian judicial appointments. Our federal judiciary is totally screwed by what the Biden regime has done! Now you claim to be apolitical, and you claim to support a judiciary that is focused on the laws and not on ideology or politics. Every single damn appointment by the Biden Harris regime was ideological and political. What’s more, newsflash, it is unconstitutional to appoint someone because of his or her race or ethnicity. I lived in Washington state, the Biden Harris regime was able to replace the entire judiciary in the western District of Washington, with lawyers of color. Washington state used to be 73% white, before the Biden Harris regime opened the border. But not one single fucking white judge was appointed by the Biden Harris regime! Also, this army of America-hating federal judges is destroying and eroding the civil rights of all disabled Americans. You make me sick, Harsh! You got to go to law school as a reward for not being white. The way you thank America is by accusing us of racism, those of us who had to go without so that you could get special treatment! Glad to see you go, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out…

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Downeast Karen

      Harsh doesn’t comment on the nominees, he just does write ups on the nominees & those are not political pieces. I on the other had do comment on the nominees. And I don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

      Your comment “Every single damn appointment by the Biden Harris regime was ideological and political.”… Uuummm, yea. Same for the Trump administration. I didn’t think that statement is disputed or a surprise to anybody but if you didn’t know that ok, welcome to the real world… Lol

      I won’t even go into the line-by-line nonsense that you wrote. And to attack Harsh personally for starting a forum that has educated so many people on the judiciary with such baseless crap is more of who YOU are, not Harsh. I guess the only good thing about this blog ending is people such as yourself who have not said a single solitary word on this blog for years & now decide to come out of the woodwork can go back to your normal fridges of the dark web. Enjoy your seven Biden judges in the WDWA. I sure as hell will knowing you are one off the constituents that have to live under their rulings… Haaaaa

      Liked by 1 person

    • Mike's avatar

      Welp, thanks for being a coward and waiting until after Harsh closes shop to comment.

      I mean that genuinely, if garbage like you was routinely commenting here I wouldn’t have stayed long on for years.

      I look forward watching you Magats tear each other apart in the coming months as President Elon massively expands immigration to benefit his low paying companies.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Ryan J's avatar

      2 of the 7 Biden judges in the Western District of Washington are white, and both Biden judges in the Eastern District of Washington are white.

      Although Biden did focus on appointing a diverse group of judges, he did also appoint a lot of white judges. What matters is not the race of the judges but the judges’ commitment to upholding the law and protecting the rights of Americans. Republican-appointed judges are much more likely to make rulings hostile to disabled Americans than Democratic-appointed judges are. Same goes for the rights of women, people of color, LGBTQ+ people, workers, and so on.

      Liked by 1 person

    • lilee2122's avatar

      Wow I just read back ..Karen there’s no one way on bigotry and prejudice…It goes both ways on race, culture , religions etc..You don’t know who we are ..what we work at or where we’ve been or been thru..Harsh has devoted these years to this forum to initiate mature discussions on the judiciary…

      I hope you have quit whining since you posted… You are not very smart principled or moral to write those things against the founder of this blog or the people who comment..Good luck with the unconfirmed Musk by buying his way into power..Thank God for Biden judges

      Like

  13. Harsh Voruganti's avatar

    Thank you to everyone for your kind comments. It’s great to see the community that has built up over the last few years on this issue. I do encourage all of you to stay in touch, however, and continue to engage with one another and others on judicial nominations.

    The blog will still be up in 2025, so the information is available, but the posts on nominees will stop. If folks are interested in doing their own nominee write-ups or discussions going forward (on Reddit or Substack), I encourage you to do so. I am always happy to share my experiences and offer any advice I have in building a blogspace.

    Liked by 4 people

  14. tsb1991's avatar

    Thank you! It’s been a fun ride. I originally followed the judiciary through Twitter, using the Senate Cloakroom feed to know what was being voted on, and a few judiciary-related accounts on when judges were going senior or who was nominated (John Collins or jpcollins was one of them until he moved off of Musk-owned Twitter, fedjudges, and a couple of others). I believe I also found this site through Twitter, having this blog around more or less consolidated all of that and made the judiciary far easier to follow.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      I also used Senate Cloakroom’s Twitter feed for a while, and even now I try to see snippets of Senate Cloakroom on my browser while avoiding going onto X/Twitter itself.

      Prior to the Vetting Room, my main source on the judiciary was actually Wikipedia. I remember the days of clicking through the Wikipedia pages of every federal court looking to see if there were any new judicial vacancies or changes in composition. I also knew how to navigate the Senate’s website, but that meant I had to wait an hour or so after the vote finished to see the result.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. Ryan J's avatar

    Thank you Harsh for making this blog. I remember that the first blog about the judiciary I found, in late 2019 or early 2020, was a rather conservative one, and although they welcomed people with opposing views, I felt a bit out of place there. Then, I found this blog in November 2021 (technically I found an article in October 2020 correctly predicting the mass senior status of liberal judges if Biden won, but I didn’t start looking at regularly until Nov. 2021), and it has been a good community to interact with about our special interest.

    Like some others, I have enjoyed using this blog as a way to procrastinate, and I got excited whenever I saw a massive spike in the number of comments. I have been able to find common ground with everyone on this blog, even the people that commenters like to refer to as “trolls”. Likewise, I have disagreed with people on this blog too, such as when we have differing predictions on which judges will stay or go, different levels of confidence in the Senate doing their job, and different interpretations about which judges are more liberal or conservative.

    The Vetting Room has also helped me understand the behind-the-scenes about how judges get confirmed. Before the Vetting Room, I was unaware of blue slips, the 30-hour/2-hour rule, how progressive specific nominees are, or why unconfirmed nominees’ Wikipedia pages suddenly started disappearing.

    Additionally, I found people who enjoy reading my statistical analyses about judges that would bore my family or friends. I particularly appreciate that Dequan likes most of my comments, which assured me that my comments are being heard. Even if people stop commenting entirely, I will enjoy going back and seeing what me and others thought about a situation at a time (perhaps laughing about how wrong I was). But given the number of comments on the last post, I figure that WordPress has no limit on the number of comments that a single post can have, so this post might have 10,000+ comments in a couple years (though with that many comments, the first few thousand comments would be near-impossible to find).

    I’d also like to think that this blog has made at least one small change on Biden’s impact on the judiciary (i.e. suppose a Senate intern stumbled upon this blog and then went “Hey, Senator, you should consider nominating Dale Ho to the federal bench” or “Hey, Senator, keep pressuring Schumer to schedule a vote on that judge you want confirmed”).

    Liked by 3 people

  16. Austin's avatar

    A shame that you’re leaving and that the blog is probably dead.

    I’ve been reading since 2017-18 and have enjoyed learning about various judicial deals and nuggets of insider knowledge that you and the team are able to dig up. Though I guess this is the end of widely available condensed information on various nominees which is sad. Especially because Trump nominees are more interesting to read about as they often have more colorful backgrounds and because I’m a member of the Federalist Society myself.

    Though If anyone finds a new blog that takes over the mantle of this one let me know.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. raylodato's avatar

    This is a real loss and leaves a gaping hole in forums about the third branch. I don’t say that as a criticism, but as a compliment–Harsh has created a really valuable resource that provided in-depth information on nominees and brought really knowledgeable people (take a bow, regulars) to a place where interesting discussions took place.

    Harsh, you definitely deserve the time you need for family and anything else you please. I wish you every success and thank you greatly for all the work you put into this over the years. It’s been a great gathering spot, and gave me lots to think about, especially whenever (ahem) the Senate decided to be in session. Your research into the candidates was impressive and really helped me watch SJC hearings feeling as if I knew something about the nominees already.

    I’ll get in touch with @Ethan about the contact sheet, and I’m probably heading over to @Anthony Myralodas’s place. Stay well, everyone.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Rick's avatar

    Thank you for this site Harsh. I especially enjoyed the site in last 4 years when I or someone else would comment about a new batch of nominees from the WH, or whose scheduled in the Thurs SJC Business meeting, or announcing Schumer filed cloture on a nominee(s).. I really enjoyed Vetting Room when Democrats have control of the WH and senate.

    I won’t watch senate proceedings anymore, but I’ll follow Wikipedia so as to see who these far right MAGA nominees are (yuck).

    Does anyone remember a legal blog that I think has long since gone away, The Blog of the Legal Times. I remember that one when Obama was president. That was a good site, but Vetting Room was much better.

    Happy New Year to everyone!

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Gavi's avatar

    Adding my gratitude to Harsh and his contributors for keeping this blog going for eight years. I had planned to stop coming on here during the next administration but regret to know that the blog won’t be around for everyone else who would want to continue using it or even to discover it. The federal judiciary is my single electoral issue so every loss of a judiciary resource is a loss too many.

    All the very best to all users. As a pessimistic contrarian, I revel in all the disagreements I’ve had on here with folks who are no less passionate about this entire branch of government.

    I wish you strength and perseverance to survive Trump, trumpism, and judicial ignorance/apathy in the years to come.

    Keep caring about the courts!

    Liked by 4 people

  22. tsb1991's avatar

    We did get the committee assignments yesterday, so it doesn’t sound like reorganizing will be prolonged as it was the previous two Congresses. On the SJC, as expected Democrats did lose a seat (going from 11 to 10). Durbin will be the Ranking Member, the membership is the same as at the end of last Congress except Ossoff is no longer on the committee (Schiff’s seat is permanent, which surprised me since I thought the Feinstein/Butler/Schiff seat was going to be the one axed as it was the most junior seat). On the Republican side, Cotton is no longer on the committee, while Schmitt (MO), Britt (AL), and Crapo (ID) join the committee.

    I’m still surprised Durbin stayed on as Ranking Member, when you’re #2 in the minority leadership being a Ranking Member on any committee doesn’t sound like a desirable job, thought maybe Whitehouse would have gotten the job (he’s now Ranking member on EPW, after chairing Budget last Congress).Still awaiting on commissions, now that we’re past the new year DuBose in RI can take the bench at any time. Given the confirmation was nearly a year ago you’d think she’d be good to go around Day 1.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Gavi's avatar

      @TSB “Schiff’s seat is permanent”

      There’s no such thing as a permanent seat on SJC. Schiff only has a seat because Ossoff gave up his (expect Ossoff to get a plum assignment to one of the Class A and/or exclusive committees). California senators just happen to have a history of caring more about the judiciary than the average Dem senator. No one else wanted the job after Ossoff won his special election in January 2021, so he had to go onto SJC. Fun fact, if in the future Ossoff wants back onto SJC, he’ll get first dibs (including over more senior senators) and will maintain his seniority (for example, he’ll outrank Schiff).

      “I’m still surprised Durbin stayed on as Ranking Member”

      Not sure why this is surprising. This is often the case. Durbin had to work hard for a conference rule change in 2021 to serve in leadership while holding a committee gavel. No way he’d relinquish it after only 4 years. And he wouldn’t willingly give it up for Whitehouse who actively and publicly campaigned against his chairmanship in 2021. Also, I am pretty sure that Whitehouse is the (now) ranking member of a subcommittee (in SJC I think). Dem rules limit members to only 2 gavels.

      No surprise about Schmitt finally getting one of the Republican seats on SJC. Conversely, I am surprised that Blackburn is keeping her seat. She only got the seat because of the terrible optics of the all men Republicans questioning Dr. Ford during the Kavanaugh confirmation rehearing (forcing them to hire a female attorney to start off the questioning before they abandoned that and went after Ford themselves). I guess she got a taste for it and will be sticking around.

      Britt is an interesting choice. The user @Mitch likes to claim that she’s the paragon of comity, a thing very few non-hard right conservatives would say. We’ll see how she holds up in scrutinizing the Fed Soc hacks that’ll soon be paraded in from of the SJC in quest of judgeships.

      Liked by 1 person

      • tsb1991's avatar

        Yeah, maybe permanent wasn’t the best word, but it was in the context of him being thrown onto the committee at the end of the last Congress, I was thinking he’d be more of a placeholder. And you’re right about Ossoff, he did get a seat on Appropriations, which I know is the holy grail of Senate committees, and back in the old days getting on that committee meant you’d be a Senator for life. Probably won’t matter much in this day and age of polarization, but it could help him in 2026 if he can say he funneled some money back home.

        Forgot to mention that the balance went from 11D-10R to 12R-10D. That does mean Republicans can’t lose anybody on a party-line vote, but I highly doubt that’ll ever come into play.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Gavi's avatar

        Right, good for Ossoff. If this had happened earlier, Netburn would have been confirmed last congress.
        Besides his clear interest in the judiciary, there’s another benefit for Schiff joining SJC. Membership on the Intelligence Committee is solely based on membership on Appropriations, Armed Services, Foreign Relations, OR SJC. 1 Republican and 1 Dem are taken from each of those committees to sit on Intelligence. Maybe not this congress or the next, or the next, but Schiff’s SJC seat will set him up to go on Intelligence when there’s a vacancy. Remember he was the House Intelligence Chair/member before he was kicked off by Republicans.

        While I dislike the inflated number of SJC membership (I think actual Senate rule sets the number at 18 or so, but is routinely waived/ignored/increased) I won’t complain about trump judges having to sit through a large number of senators’ questions in hearings.

        Liked by 1 person

  24. Zack's avatar

    Karla Campbell’s nomination has now been officially returned to the Senate along with Julia Lipez and Adeel Mangi’s.
    Now we wait to see what Judge Stranch does while also lamenting that we gifted Trump a Circuit court seat that will cement the Republican majority on the 3rd Circuit (also helped by Clinton/Obama judges who didn’t care about being replaced by Republicans)
    The 1st Circuit vacancy doesn’t bother me as much, as the person they nominate will be writing dissents for the next 30-40 years and as for concerns he or she will write dissents that will catch the eye of SCOTUS, as Carson V Makin showed they didn’t need someone for that.
    Still sucks we missed a chance at an all Democratic circuit court but it is what it is.
    I will say in the next two years, sans J.Harvie Wilkinson, Frank Easterbrook and Edith Jones, I fully expect all of the remaining Reagan and George Sr judges in active status to take senior status this time around.
    My fear is some Clinton and Obama judges will join them or pass away.
    Let’s hope that won’t happen.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Gavi's avatar

    Over the next few years I will be paying even more attention to state courts. The race in Wisconsin is top of mind for me (and 3(!!!) Dem seats in PA). While Dems bow and scrape and trip over themselves to prove how faithful they are to election results, partisans on the NC Supreme Court are giving us a lesson in raw power.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/north-carolina-s-gop-led-supreme-court-intervenes-to-block-election-victory-of-democratic-justice/ar-AA1x80y9?rc=1&ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=3aa1a082c9c84287f0addd170c557f8c&ei=36

    Speaking of the “nonpartisan” Wisconsin SC election, the April race is now set between the liberal-aligned Judge Susan Crawford and the Republican-aligned Judge Brad Schimel. Schimel is planning on using Trump’s successful 2024 playbook in the state, focusing on a tough on crime message. I’m reminded that this helped to sink Mandela Barnes in 2022. Crawford seems like a normie candidate who also happened to represent Planned Parenthood at one point in her career. Would be a shame to lose the majority after less than 2 years.

    Liked by 2 people

  28. lilee2122's avatar

    Thank you 11th circuit court for not upholding judge Cannons blocking of Special counsel. Jack Smiths, final report release of the Jan. 6th insurrection of 2020..Even tho more appeals and briefs follow… Thank you Supreme court 5 justices who shot down also today a Trump team request to delay his NY sentencing set for Friday the 10th for the NY case…

    Liked by 2 people

  30. humanfault's avatar

    I know that Harsh said this is likely the end of this site but I hope he still makes an analysis if (God forbid) another Supreme Court vacancy opens up. At the very least this is a pretty good resource to accumulate information relating to the views and temperaments of these nominees without a lot of the partisanship and sensationalism of the 24/7 news cycle.

    Liked by 2 people

  31. Ryan J's avatar

    Starting on Jan 20th, I expect to see a slew of conservative judges moving to senior status. Not to the level that liberal judges did when Biden became president, but still a significant number. I would say the likeliest to take senior status are conservative judges who became eligible during Biden’s term or during Trump’s 2nd term (and therefore couldn’t have gone during Trump’s first term), though some older conservatives might as well. Here’s the circuit judges I think are the most likely to vacate under Trump’s 2nd term:

    1st circuit: none
    2nd circuit: Livingston (2027)
    3rd circuit: none
    4th circuit: Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Agee
    5th circuit: Jones, Smith, Richman
    6th circuit: Stranch(?), Sutton (2028), Griffin
    7th circuit: Easterbrook, Sykes
    8th circuit: Gruender (2028), Benton, Shepherd
    9th circuit: Callahan, Ikuta
    10th circuit: Tymkovich
    11th circuit: W. Pryor (2027)
    D.C. circuit: Henderson
    Federal Circuit: Newman (involuntarily), Lourie, Prost

    Notable exclusions: Loken (8th Cir.), M. Smith (9th Cir.), Hartz (10th Cir.)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      Additionally, another thing I noticed is that pretty much all of the judges who took senior status under Trump are still alive.

      These include very old judges such as Gerald Bard Tjoflat (11th Cir, age 95), Carlos Bea (9th Cir, age 90), Anthony Kennedy (SCOTUS, age 88), W Eugene Davis (5th Cir, age 88), Diarmuid O’Scannlain (9th Cir, age 87), E Grady Jolly (5th Cir, age 87), Paul Joseph Kelly (10th Cir, age 84), Dennis Jacobs (2nd Cir, age 80), Alice Batchelder (6th Cir, age 80), Danny Boggs (6th Cir, age 80).

      Most of these judges are still hearing cases, so they would have been able to make it to Trump’s 2nd term had they not went senior during his 1st.

      Liked by 1 person

  33. Gavi's avatar

    Kent Jordan has officially resigned from the bench and his seat is vacant. 5 days out from Trump 2.0 I think we can assume that Judge Stranch will not rescind her senior status, misplaced confidence aside. I don’t need reminders that she could still do so at any time before a replacement is confirmed. That she could is an entirely different world from her actually doing so. It would be confounding for her to wait this long, over 2 months of transition, only to do it on or after Trump is back in office. Part of a judge’s job is to be judicious and waiting so close to Trump’s return or after would be needlessly injudicious.

    From Stranch’s late announcement to Schumer’s deal, to Stranch presumingly not rescinding, the whole thing has mostly been a huge disappointment, to say the least. While I hold it against her for not announcing her intention to retire sooner, I can’t really blame her for not rescinding, not knowing her health or family situation. It would have been such sweet justice for all TN CA6 seats to be held by liberals for decades to come.

    Hello, Judge Skrmetti.

    (This is assuming that Stranch hasn’t already officially rescinded with this not becoming public yet.)

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Joe's avatar

    I fear you are correct on Stranch, Gavi. I was holding out some hope that she rescinded between Christmas and New Years and that the system simply hadn’t updated. But that looks less and less likely be the day. I badly hope that we are wrong and she does in fact decide to stay on the bench.

    Liked by 1 person

    • lilee2122's avatar

      I’m watching this North Carolina Supreme Court race with D- Alison Riggs to see how it shakes out. R-Griffin is throwing everything at any court he can it seems to overturn 60000 votes already counted twice and trying to overturn NC election law after the election!! I would say uncomplimentary things here but gonna hold…

      Liked by 1 person

  35. Joe's avatar

    Yeah, the NC situation is very bad, in my opinion. I fear this is a sneak peak of the kind of stuff that will be mainstream Republican positions and election tactics very soon when they don’t get their way.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Zack's avatar

    It sucks we can’t flip Kent Jordan’s seat but as I said before, if he had wanted Biden to replace him, he wouldn’t have timed his retirement the way he did, as he was eligible to take senior status/retirement two years ago like D Brooks Smith, another George W Judge did and he didn’t.
    Yes the letter he sent to Biden was very nice but his actions speak louder then words.
    He didn’t want to be replaced by a moderate/liberal jurist and now he won’t be.
    I so wanted Chris Howland in that seat but it is what it is.
    As for Stranch, it would have been nice if she had done her senior status earlier so we wouldn’t be in the mess we are now with her seat but I don’t think she qualified earlier under the rules of senior status.
    It does look like at this point she’s not taking her senior status back (maybe she wants to see who’s replacing her now) so maybe that will change.
    Also, while 2022 wasn’t as bad as it could have been, we still paid the consequences in that and 2020 for not picking up more Senate seats.
    That left us at the mercy of Manchin and Sinema and once they started to vote no as a team, that doomed Campbell/Park/Lipez.
    Last but not least, it sucks that Alito’s old seat on the 3rd Circuit that we had flipped will now be going back to a clone like him.
    I hate what Mangi went through but the writing was on the wall with his nomination long ago and it was absurd that when it was clear he didn’t have the votes that it was left to linger instead of someone else being nominated.
    Still did good overall, I just feel like at the end we could have done a little bit more.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ryan J's avatar

      I don’t think Jordan cared about which party picked his successor. If he wanted a Republican to do so, he would have waited until after the election to announce. He basically decided to leave his seat up to chance. I had some hope about Stranch rescinding but each day I have a little less.

      Biden did a good job filling most of the seats, and there was a limit to how much he could impact the courts due to Trump getting so many judges and Republican judges not wanting to retire under a Democrat.

      Liked by 1 person

  37. tsb1991's avatar

    Davenport received her commission on the 13th, so all that’s left is Neary.

    Also, I learned that Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSBlog was indicted for tax evasion, something way out of left field. I believe SCOTUSBlog was my first venture into the judiciary, thanks to their live reporting/chatting on opinion days (and the only time I really visit it with any regularity is in June, like most people). It’s also where I learned a lot of under the hood stuff about SCOTUS, such as how the opinions are generally divided up evenly among the justices and you could use their Statistics page to get a good guess on which justices would write the remaining undecided cases. I remember explaining this process to a co-worker when I was waiting for Whole Women’s Health (the Texas TRAP law case) to be decided in June 2016, and that the law had a very good chance of being struck down based on which justices hadn’t written an opinion from the time when the case was heard (it was down to Kennedy, Breyer, and Kagan).

    Liked by 2 people

  39. Zack's avatar

    @Dequan, he (or rather McConnell) will get to fill two judicial vacancies out of Alaska’s district courts.
    Sucks along with that deal but it’s a consequence of not winning more Senate seats in 2022 and 2020 and having to be at the mercy of Manchin and Sinema.
    Once they both started to decide being no votes as a team, that doomed several nominees.
    I truly believe that if we had even one more Democratic senator, we would have had Park/Lipez/Campbell confirmed and perhaps a small chance that the dice would have been rolled on nominating someone to fill Kent Jordan’s seat.
    Mangi sadly was doomed and that was clear months ago.
    I get not wanting to cave but the writing was on the wall and that was a bigger self inflicted wound then anything else.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Haaaaaaaaaaaa… I kept telling you all buckle up. Republicans are about to show you what to do when you have power. Friday night & Saturday votes in mid January. If I remember correctly senate Democrats always took a couple weeks off in January. Incredible

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Blue slips? Filibuster? Are you kidding. Democrats didn’t fill FIVE circuit court seats they could have without either of those two things to worry about. Nor did they fill two SDNY seats. Or a SDCA seat. Republicans ain’t about to make that same mistake. Did you see when the Secretary of Defense was confirmed? On a Friday night. How about the Secretary of Homeland Security? Try a Saturday.

        These guys have worked the same amount of Friday & Saturday’s in one month of power as Democrats did in the last years. Buckle up, it’s about to be a bumpy ride. These guys know what to do when they are in power.

        Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        Yeah they made the Republicans have votes on cabinet nominees over the weekend.

        I see 3 vacancies for the Circuit courts Why do feel threatened if there is one Trump nominee for the First Circuit.

        We don’t know who that nominee will be. As for Schumer, he has plenty of options. It’s not going to make much of difference since it’s only 2 vacancies.

        I am more concerned with Cabinet nominees than a judge here or there.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I guess that’s the difference between Democrats & Republicans. I can assure you they see what the big deal is in (At that time Five circuit court vacancies) for Trump to fill. And I don’t know who Trump will fill the vacancies with but I can assure you whoever it is, they will be to the right of Park, Campbell, Lipez, Mangi & whoever the 3rd – Delaware nominee would have been. It’s time to take the rise pedal glasses off. These people have power & they are not playing games.

        Liked by 1 person

      • shawnee68's avatar

        I’ve have said this before and it’s worth repeating.

        George W Bush nomination Roger Gregory (Clinton recess appointment )4th circuit, Barrington Parker 2nd Circuit and Helene White 6th Circuit.

        Those nominees were Democrats and no one from the GOP made noise about that . I guess you can count Trent Lott who was the lone vote against Gregory.

        It was very statesman like for Bush to make those appointments especially in case of Gregory who was the first African American to serve on the 4th Circuit.

        None of those nominations prevented Bush from moving the court’s to the right.

        Biden considered a nominee for a Kentucky DC judgeship and people on the left went nuts. When Rand Paul refused to agree on the nomination,that issue died.

        The GOP has no legislative agenda whatsoever, except tax cuts for the wealthy and immigration.

        It’s no wonder why nominations are so important: they have no real agenda that is beneficial to anyone except for their billionaire supporters.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Two problems with that comparison. Donald Trump is no GW Bush & blue slips for circuit court seats were still around back then so deals had to still be negotiated & agreed to. I like you so do me a favor & don’t hold your breath waiting for Donald Trump to renominate Lipez to the 1st. You definitely will need EMS if you did… Haaaaa

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        AGAIN that’s the difference between you & Republicans. They want each & every seat they can get. They don’t care if Democrats have the majority today. They know you have to start somewhere. All 9 SCOTUS justices were Democrat appointees when President Truman left office. How’s that working out for us now?

        When I moved to Florida all 7 Supreme Court justices were Democrat appointees. Now all 7 are Republican appointees. You have to start somewhere. Republicans understand this & know how to play the long game. That’s why they are winning now.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Haaaaaa… Are you kidding. Did you see some of the left liberal nominees that were confirmed in the lame duck? There’s no way they had the votes but Campbell, Park & Lipez didn’t when you take out Vance & Rounds for a month, leaving Republicans with only 47 votes.

        Look, I am a loyal Democrat, but math is math & we need to face reality. Republicans are not afraid to work five (And even six) days a week to confirm their nominees while Democrats can barely scratch a full three-day work week. That will need to change next time they are in power.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        For the sake of this blog I’m speaking about judges, not laws. And speaking of judges, the GOP is winning. And Democrats refusal to work more than 4 & in some cases 3 days a week or ever cancel recess time when they were in power is about to pad the Republicans lead. You or anybody trying not to face that reality isn’t going to change that unfortunately.

        Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        I think the confusion is that you think the judiciary is more important than Congress and the President: it’s not.

        If you can’t control those branches of government , the judiciary will not save you.

        Judges aren’t everything . Sometimes you talk like they are the only thing.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Again, this is a blog about the judiciary so yes, the conversation will almost exclusively be about the judiciary here. If you were at my house yesterday the conversation would have almost exclusively have been about football. But here yes, judges judges judges… Lol

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        @shawnee68

        Correct. When you work 3 days a week, take recess weeks almost every week & don’t take advantage of 2 Republican senators being out for over a month, you are most certainly correct. There aren’t enough votes to confirm the remaining nominees. We agree

        Like

      • lilee2122's avatar

        Things are not as cohesive in the republican senate as it appears..Vance just came in to break his first tie on a nominee.. if trump wants to keep on Collins good side he should renominate Lipez who Collins recommended anyway…I see trouble now and ahead for these ill thought out agendas So far some executive orders are actually illegal , that dont follow our constitution or later on court precedents….. musk buying votes in PA, Griffin trying g to toss out 60000 votes it goes on and on a shameful list of poor losers in the gop .. not the mindset America needs in power

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Vance breaking a tie vote still means the nominee is confirmed. The Secretary of Defense is just as much the Secretary of Defense after a 51-50 vote as Marco Rubio is the Secretary of State after a 99-0 vote. And Trump renominate Lipez… Haaaaaaaaa… My God you reaching now. That may be the funniest thing I’ve heard all year.

        Like

      • Ryan J's avatar

        I’m with Dequan on this one. Every seat counts. As we see with Pete Hegseth, had Democrats held just one more seat (such as Bob Casey’s in Pennsylvania), Hegseth would not have been confirmed.

        Likewise, the 5th circuit rulings can end up 9-8 because sometimes a couple of the right-wing hacks will randomly side with the liberals and moderate conservatives. On the 1st circuit, Barron and Gelpi side with the conservatives in some cases, meaning that Trump’s appointee could bring some conservative wins. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had at least three 4-3 rulings in key voting rights cases, at least one of which conservatives won, despite having a 5-2 Democratic majority. And of course SCOTUS still has some 5-4 rulings despite having a 6-3 conservative majority, as there are cases where 1 or 2 conservative justices join the liberals.

        Republican Senators understand that every vote counts and use that their advantage. Democratic Senators may intuitively understand that every vote counts, but they don’t always take the steps to ensure that Democrats get as many seats as possible on the federal courts.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        The worst part about the “deal” is Democrats could have had both (Maybe with the exception of Mangi). Had they just followed the Thune schedule, they could have confirmed them all (Including the local DC judges) in the five weeks of the lame duck. I swear every time I hear people make excuses for this reminds me of why Republicans are winning. They don’t make excuses. They have three votes on Mondays, a full day on Thursday & even Friday votes. That’s real leadership despite me disagreeing with their policies.

        Like

  42. Joe's avatar

    I don’t see Lipez being renominated. If that was the case, why not simply confirm her last December? There was time and if Collins was in support they certainly would’ve had the votes.

    My guess is it’ll go to a center right ally of Collins.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. tsb1991's avatar

    Michigan Senator Gary Peters (who chaired the Homeland Security Committee so he was largely responsible for local DC judicial nominations) is not running for re-election in 2026. Also oversaw the confirmation of 7 district judges in Michigan during the Biden presidency (6 to EDMI, 1 to WDMI), along with Stephanie Davis during Trump, who was then promoted up to the 6th Circuit.

    Obviously not ideal to have to defend this open swing state Senate race, but retiring during a Republican president’s midterm is probably the best time to go as it should be a favorable environment for Democrats. Still a bit of a surprise as I figured Markey/Reed/Durbin would have retired first. The question is who runs for this seat. Whitmer has already ruled out a run (not that I think she’d enjoy being a Senator), I can’t imagine Nessel, the AG running (she passed up a run for the other seat in 2024 and cited having to be in the same building as Ted Cruz as a reason not to run), and Benson, the SOS, is running for governor. It’ll probably be someone from their House delegation, if not maybe Mallory McMorrow?

    On the subject of EDMI, two of the remaining three Bush appointees are up for senior status (Ludington and Cox), while Murphy doesn’t appear to be up until 2027. If both retire during the next year or so I wouldn’t be surprised to see some package deal between Trump and Peters/Slotkin.

    Liked by 1 person

    • tsb1991's avatar

      And for AliKhan, her cloture and confirmation votes were Harris’ last two tiebreaking votes as VP, so her fingerprints were on this nomination as well.

      Of course, given SCOTUS, any ruling by a district/appeals court judge against Trump is likely only temporary, as SCOTUS during the first Trump presidency showed they were more than willing to use the shadow docket to help Trump, even going as far to throw out a district court’s ruling before an appeals court could even rule on it.

      If this does go up the appeals ladder, the DC Circuit, barring a bad panel, should also uphold the ruling, and then to SCOTUS where there’s a non-zero chance there are five votes to declare that Republican Presidents have appropriating power instead of Congress.

      Liked by 2 people

  49. Zack's avatar

    Bottom line, when you don’t win certain races like we didn’t in WI/NC (twice) and Maine, you leave judicial confirmations up to people like Manchin and Sinema.
    Yes, there were times when Republicans were gone but I’m betting you those two said to Schumer you try to confirm and we’ll block other judges down the line.
    If Lipez or Campbell had been confirmed, who’s to say if Embry Kidd or other judicial nominees would have been?
    And yes, I realize Fetterman has been a jerk since Casey lost but he didn’t do what the other two did in blocking nominees.
    Bottom line, it’s easier to do what Republicans are doing right now because they have 53 Senators.
    I think if we had those numbers we could have done a little bit more then we did.
    But we didn’t.
    It sucks but it is what is.
    The Mangi seat was the biggest self-inflicted wound IMO.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ryan J's avatar

      Living in Orange County, California, it gives me a little bit of solace that the deal resulted in Cheeks and Murillo (the latter who hears cases in Orange County) getting confirmed. Without the deal, I don’t see the GOP allowing Schiff to replace Butler on the judiciary committee.

      Effectively, we gave up 2 circuit judges for 2 district judges, which is still a net loss (not sure exactly how many district court seats a circuit court seat is worth — I would say maybe 5 but it depends on where those seats are).

      Kidd would still have been confirmed because it about 2 days + Trump screaming “STOP CONFIRMING BIDEN JUDGES” from his megaphone in order for the GOP to get their act together. I suppose that some district judges may have failed to be confirmed had Manchin + Sinema indeed made such threats (I’m guessing that Manchin may have purposely skipped votes on Nov 20 as part of the deal in order to advance a bunch of nominees by a 50-49 vote).

      Lastly, about Fetterman, I’m seeing him as someone who will support the president regardless of who or what party. He voted to confirm every Biden judge, and while he’s voted against a couple Trump nominees, he’s voted to confirm most of them, and he is the only Democrat to vote to advance in procedural votes that Democrats are forcing to slow the process down.

      Like

  50. Ryan J's avatar

    Does anyone understand the status of Catherine Eagles at the Middle District of North Carolina? The Wikipedia page claims that she’s simultaneously Chief Judge and Senior Judge, which I thought was impossible. If she has taken senior status, I’d assume the chiefship would return to William Osteen Jr., who is 64 but has been chief judge before.

    I would’ve attributed it to either a rescinsion or a lack of updating, but Catherine Eagles is listed as active from 2010-2024, chief from 2023-present, and senior from 2024-present. I don’t recall this ever having happened before, and I know that rules are waived if no one else qualified. If Eagles is indeed the chief judge and also a senior judge, I guess that Osteen and Schroeder preferred not to be chief judge again and Eagles is willing to remain on as Chief Judge until 1 year from the day that her or Biggs’s successor is confirmed.

    As of December 31, 2024:

    # Title Judge Duty station Born Term of service Appointed by
    Active Chief Senior
    13 Chief Judge Catherine Eagles Greensboro 1958 2010–2024 2023–present 2024–present Obama

    Like

Leave a reply to Joe Cancel reply