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.

1,225 Comments

  1. beyondnonjd's avatar

    10.24.2025 Cruz, Cornyn Accepting Applications for District Court Vacancies | https://www.cruz.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cruz-cornyn-accepting-applications-for-district-court-vacancies | Deadline tomorrow for submissions for N.D. (Dallas) and S.D. (McAllen) vacancies over in Texas.

    Has anyone seen/heard anything new with Kansas? The only story I easily saw come up is behind a paywall from September. You can Google: “Three openings on the federal bench in Kansas; A look at possible nominees.”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. derickjohnson's avatar

    The candidates whose names have emerged in recent weeks include:

    Kansas Bureau of Investigation Director Tony Mattivi

    Kansas Solicitor General Anthony Powell

    U.S. bankruptcy Judge Mitchell Herren

    Topeka lawyer and former federal prosecutor Bradley Schlozman

    Kansas City lawyer Michael Raupp

    Great Bend lawyer Jeffrey Kuhlman

    State Parks and Wildlife chief counsel Kurtis Wiard

    These are the names for Kansas

    Liked by 2 people

    • Mitch's avatar

      @derickjohnson

      Bradley Schlozman: He was a very controversial AGA in the Civil Rights Division for George W. Bush and was investigated for misusing his office. No charges were pressed but he was forced to resign.

      Anthony Powell: he is 63, he was a Kansas state judge for some 20 years appointed to the state Court of Appeals by Sam Brownback. Became state Solicitor General in 2022. Given the nominees in Mississippi and Louisiana, I don’t rule him out.

      Kurtis Wiard: was once Assistant state Solicitor General. He got attention when he opposed the appeal of Damon Baumgarner, who was convicted for Felony Possession of a Firearm. Baumgarner’s conviction was overturned by the court of appeals. Baumgarner sought restitution, but Wiard argued he wasnt eligible because he’d served his term in a county jail rather than state. The state SCOTUS ruled unanimously for Baumgarner.

      Tony Mattivi: he was an AUSA for over 20 years before getting his current post, much of it in the National Security Section. He won some notable terrorism convictions over the years. He was also once President of the Federal Bar Association of Kansas.

      Mitchell Herrin: was an attorney at the Hinkle Law Firm in Kansas City for 21 years before becoming a bankruptcy judge in 2023. He may be the least controversial on the list.

      Michael Raupp: a partner at Husch Blackwell in Kansas City. He is a former investment analyst at a global asset management firm. He’s done a lot of White Collar Criminal Defense. At 40 y/o, he’s one of the younger being considered.

      Jeffrey Kuhlman: a litigator at Watkins Culcara in Great Bend, where he specializes in defending government agencies against lawsuits. At 35 y/o, he’s the youngest of the nominees being listed.

      There are three vacancies on the U.S. District Court for Kansas. Anyone care to speculate?

      Liked by 1 person

  4. 39wimpyclues's avatar

    Can someone talk to those Obama-appointed Missouri judges and tell them not to retire/take senior status while Josh Hawley is senator?

    Cuz now the Eastern District of Missouri is an incredibly lopsided 8-1 right-wing majority while the Western District is barely hanging on with its 5-2 (4-3 after Megan Benton’s likely appointment) liberal majority. And with how young those Trump judges are, it’s gonna be that way for at least 40 years

    Liked by 2 people

  5. beyondnonjd's avatar

    Happy to see this message board come back to life!

    Article that may be of interest to our community: Full Fifth Circuit Overrides Moderate Senior Judges’ Rulings, November 19, 2025, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/legal-ethics/full-fifth-circuit-overrides-moderate-senior-judges-rulings

    SJC Hearing today is for three district court seats (Alaska, Arkansas, Texas). Wondering how many D Senators will show up. Possibly squeeze in the other three (Indiana, Missouri, Tennessee) before the end of 2025 and then vote them out of committee in 2026? Along with any announcements between now and early December?

    Liked by 1 person

  6. beyondnonjd's avatar

    In case anyone here updates Wikipedia once the specific information is available (not yet on the White House website, but sent to Congress last night; makes sense given the hearing starts soon!): https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B%22source%22%3A%22nominations%22%2C%22congress%22%3A119%7D

    Aaron Christian Peterson, of Alaska, to be United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, vice Timothy Mark Burgess, retired.

    Nicholas Jon Ganjei, of Texas, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, vice Lynn H. Hughes, retired.

    David Clay Fowlkes, of Arkansas, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, vice Paul Kinloch Holmes, III, retired.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. beyondnonjd's avatar

    For those curious, Judge Taibleson’s FJC page no longer has not yet assumed office. Which means I think we have 179/179 active circuit judges for the first time since late October 2020.

    And the Ninth Circuit has updated their list of judges.

    https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/judicial-council/judges-seniority-list/ (Judge Tung at the bottom, Judge Ikuta listed as senior, and Judge Kleinfeld (senior) passed away earlier this month).

    With so many “younger” circuit judges, will we see a “gap” in ~10-15 years of the number of senior status circuit judges pitching in? It looks like the first 6 of Trump 2.0 are ~38, 41, 42, 42, 44, and 49. So many senior judges born in the 1940s and 1930s (and a couple in the 1920s!) that I’d be curious if anyone who pays more attention to this has written about trends. My numbers could be slightly off, but I think we currently have ~111 “active” senior judges and ~13 “inactive” senior judges (i.e., not listed on their court websites). Not an expert and haven’t looked too much into the ages of the Reagan-to-Obama nominees for circuit positions. But definitely happy if someone else has done the heavy lifting or can point to stuff already out there.

    Liked by 2 people

    • beyondnonjd's avatar

      I was going to share a recap.

      On the light side:

      • Senator Cruz opened and joked that the only fault for Ganjei is who he worked for in the Senate. A light exchange between Senator Kennedy and Ganjei on alphabet burping and imaginary friends.

      On the substance side:

      • I was curious how many Democrat Senators would show up. No circuit judges and three pretty safe red state seats. With AFJ only opposing Ganjei from the website banners, I was expecting about 50% attendance. And I think that’s what we got. I counted questions from Senator Durbin, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Hirono, and Senator Schiff at the end.
      • Ganjei unsurprisingly received most of the hardball questioning, though the Senators were sure to spread the wealth on questioning. Nothing that any said leads me to believe any will have any issues getting out of committee/confirmed. Maybe even a couple D votes for Fowlkes for his strong work in combatting CSAM, which the committee has had strong bipartisan support around.
      • Senator Sullivan’s opening statement was quite telling to me (and he used the word vetting). I’d recommend watching or checking his website’s press release. Senator Murkowski was the only one of the six home state senators that I didn’t see attend (I may have missed). Curious what real role she will play, if any, in the second vacancy selection.
      • The Senator Kennedy bar exam went well for everyone. Senator Hawley went into law professor mode on the post-CASA landscape for universal injunctions, but he acknowledged he was giving too much help to the nominees in the form of helping them get to the answers.

      There were parts I wasn’t fully tuned in for, so may have missed a couple things. Hoping they’ll squeeze in one more in December. I learn a lot from them.

      Now to see if today is the day the Mississippi nominees get unlocked from Committee in the EBM.

      Liked by 2 people

  9. 39wimpyclues's avatar

    Y’all saw Judge Jerry Smith’s dissent on the Texas redistricting case?

    I didn’t think you can get any more partisan and biased than the average Trump-appointed circuit court hack but wow the Reagan-appointed judges are on a different level of far-right hack. It’s just me but if you reference George Soros or Gavin Newsom in your dissent when it’s neither needed nor necessary, you’ve lost your credibility as a judge.

    Good thing based on reports I saw, he’s one of those judges who’s staying until they croak so I hope when he does kick the bucket, it’s under a Dem presidency. Because God helps us if he kicks the bucket right now, and he’s replaced by a 35-year-old far-right hack who’ll stay on the court for 40 years.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Ethan's avatar

    And now John P. Collins is reporting that Obama appointee Susan Hickey on the Western District of Arkansas will take senior status upon the confirmation of a successor. I guess she was only appointed with blue slips in place (well Arkansas one Democrat Senator, Mark Pryor, in 2011). Or maybe she saw how the other WD-AR seat was never filled under Biden. But still ughhh.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Mitch's avatar

    @Dequan

    It’s official, Erin Hawley is being seriously considered for a judgeship on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Also, a new name has appeared as a possibility. He is Jesus Osete, an assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights DIvision.

    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/litigator-erin-hawley-said-to-be-interested-in-circuit-seat

    I continue to be of the opinion that the nominee will be either Hawley or Sarah Piltyk.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      WOW, what a non sleepy Friday. News day. First Marjorie Taylor Greene announces she will resign from Congress & now this. 

      Jesus Osete is the only new name to me. I find it hard to believe he would get it over either of the two woman we have spoken about mentioned in the article with the 8th only having one woman.

      Like

  17. Mike S.'s avatar

    I was just as surprised as everyone to see that Marge Greene is resigning from Congress!

    Jesus Osete seems to be incredibly young. I just don’t understand how you can nominate someone with less than 10-12 years experience as a lawyer (Josh Divine says ‘hold my beer’). A young, Hispanic nominee could be appealing, given most of Trump’s nominees have been white men.

    Trump has nominated very few women so far. Erin Hawley, I believe was born in 1981. The 8th Circuit has only ever had two women serve on that court. In 2025, that is remarkable. Pitlyk and Hawley both seem equally cuckoo for cocoa puffs. Hawley would probably be the smarter pick of the two – no need to back fill Pitlyk’s seat and may be easier to get a Senator’s wife through the Senate…

    Liked by 1 person

    • shawnee68's avatar

      I think Josh Hawley wants to run for president in 2028. So, the job of judge for someone running for that office is incompatible.

      Aside from that, Trump desires loyalists. That does not necessarily include the Federalist Society types that are normally selected( there’s a paywalled article in NY Times explaining this)

      Trump has openly attacked Leonard Leo for nominees whose rulings were not to his liking.

      There was a Senator William Roth (DE) whose wife-Jane Roth served on the 3rd Circuit ,but she was a moderate GHWB judge,

      Expect someone for the 8th Circuit not only hard right but obsequious .That’s what Trump is looking for.

      Liked by 2 people

  19. beyondnonjd's avatar

    By my count (I may be slightly off), 30 Article III judges left the bench (active and senior) for a reason other than active judge to senior status judge in 2025. Deaths, retirements, new jobs, etc. There were 20 due to death (including 1 active judge, 4 senior circuit judges, and 15 senior district judges). 10 for other things.

    For a small project I’m working on. In case of interest on those in new positions (I can’t do links on here, but you can Google each one or send me an email for the hyperlinked list). If I missed anyone, let me know! And if anyone here does Wikipedia edits, feel free to use this list to make any updates easier.

    Straight from Active Service:

    • Kent A. Jordan (CCA3) – Richards, Layton, and Finger
    • Christopher C. Conner (M.D. Pa.) – Saxton & Stump
    • Timothy Batten (N.D. Ga.) – JAMS Mediation, Arbitration and ADR Services
    • Sean Cox (E.D. Mich.) – JAMS Mediation, Arbitration and ADR Services
    • Mitchell S. Goldberg (E.D. Pa.) – wasn’t able to find the current position online, but there’s a recent paywalled article on Law.com that has a Q&A with him (title: Retired Judge Goldberg Talks Threats Against Judiciary, Plans, Time on Bench, October 10, 2025). It looks like exploring private sector options/more teaching at the time of the interview.

    From Senior Status Service:

    • Robert J. Conrad (W.D.N.C.) – listed on FJC as Director, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2024-present (and FJC Board Member)
    • Dean Pregerson (C.D. Cal.) – JAMS Mediation, Arbitration and ADR Services
    • James Shadid (C.D. Ill.) – Bradley University President
    • Barbara M. Lynn (N.D. Tex.) – Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann (bonus story about Judge Barbara Lynn and Mike Lynn from February 2015 on the website if you’re interested)
    • Mark L. Wolf (D. Mass.) – Todd & Weld LLP

    Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        @Ryan J

        Same here. I would spend hours updating pages on Wikipedia not for somebody to come behind & erase large amounts of my hard earned work. And I would only notice when I go back to add more work. That combined with that one user whose sole purpose in life was to remove entire pages until the nominee was confirmed was enough for me to be done with Wikipedia. They have no structure for it to be worth my time. I haven’t gone back in over a year so I’m not sure if things are the same but I would guess if anything, it’s worse.

        Liked by 1 person

  23. beyondnonjd's avatar

    Cloture invoked on Bragdon. Floor vote for Bragdon and cloture/floor votes for Freemen tomorrow in the AM/early PM.

    Cloture filed for Orso and Courtwright Rodriguez before Thune wrapped up. Haven’t seen yet whether they’ll be the late afternoon/early evening votes.

    (The next en bloc batch has been teed up as well). Wonder how many people will be left on the Executive Calendar when they go home for the break.

    Guessing if nothing else major is happening this week, they should be able to confirm all 8 district court nominees they can (4 NC + 2 MS + 2 LA) before they break on Thursday.

    And the White House sent the batch over today. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/nominations-sent-to-the-senate-a9f3/. Benton, Lea, Olson, + USA for M.D.N.C. and a D.C. Superior Court nominee.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. beyondnonjd's avatar

    The next EBM on Thursday posted last night. I don’t see anyone in red, so does that mean they’re considered listed/held for the first time over Thanksgiving? Now Judge Mooty has the highest EBM vote so far at 18-4; How will Fowlkes and Peterson do?

    And if the Boyle name sounds familiar for E.D.N.C.’s USA? https://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article311690174.html

    “His father, Terrence Boyle, has been a U.S. District Court judge for more than 40 years and would have to recuse himself from hearing cases that his son’s office handled, Boyle said.”

    By my count, Judge Boyle one of ~17 judges from the Reagan/H.W. Bush era left in active status. Judge Hinojosa (Reagan) went senior in May, Judge Gorton (H.W. Bush) went senior in May, and Judge Merryday (H.W. Bush) went senior in August.

    10 of the remaining judges would not require blue slips for the next person (9 circuit/1 supreme); 5 are in red states for districts (including Judge Boyle, though N.C. is a focus state for Democrats in 2026), 1 is in a purple state (Wisconsin), and 1 is in a blue state (California).

    Liked by 1 person

  25. beyondnonjd's avatar

    #20 & #21 today. Bragdon party line (AFJ put up a post right after). Freemen with 8 Senate Ds/Is. As predicted, that was noticeable outside of just our hyperfocused circles. You can check the quotes on Senate Press’ Bluesky post here: https://bsky.app/profile/senatepress.bsky.social/post/3m6zjymka2g2p.

    Of the 5 of 21 with bipartisan support, I count:

    • King (I) in the lead with 4 yes votes apiece on the floor.
    • Durbin, Hassan, & Kaine tied with 3 yes votes apiece on the floor.
    • Peters, Schiff, Shaheen, Welch, and Whitehouse with 2 yes votes apiece on the floor.
    • A small number of others (I think 7?) with 1 apiece on the floor.

    Orso gets a cloture and floor vote tomorrow. Courtwright Rodriguez only a cloture vote, but I think that means floor vote Thursday before they head off. The additional bipartisan votes over the next few days will likely ramp up the noise.

    For those interested tomorrow in an SJC subcommitte hearing:

    • Impeachment: Holding Rogue Judges Accountable
    • Rob Luther, Associate Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University
    • Stephen I. Vladeck, Agnes Williams Sesquicentennial Professor of Federal Courts, Georgetown University Law Center
    • Will Chamberlain, Senior Counsel, Article III Project

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Mike's avatar

    Genuinely impressive Thom Tillis kept safe all the open vacancies in his state until he had a Republican President in the WH.

    No compromise, no middle ground, he got exactly who he wanted to fill those posts in a state with a Dem Gov. and 52/48 state voting margin.

    Trump still destroyed him but man, Dems could learn a thing or two from this kind of resolve. I wonder how many seats Trump will fill in NY in the next 3 years.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I agree. Biden nominated Ryan Park & Tillis immediately worked behind the scenes to get two Democrats to agree not to vote for him. He used that nomination as an excuse to not negotiate for the district court vacancies. Then when he saw his colleges missing votes during the lame duck to get Embry Kidd confirmed, he blasted them & shamed them into showing up to work to force the “Deal” that left the 4th seat vacant. I gotta give credit when credit is due. Phenomenal job. It still got him a kick in the ass by Trump but these judges will be on the bench for decades in his state, long after he’s gone. 

      And to answer your question, if history is an indicator I expect several Trump 2.0 judges in New York. I wouldn’t be surprised if one of them is the MAGA type.

      Like

      • Ryan J's avatar

        Max Cogburn announced his intention to take senior status on February 25, 2022. Robert Conrad took senior status on May 17, 2023. Cogburn’s seat could have been filled before the midterms, and Conrad’s seat could have been filled by the end of 2023, but instead all Tillis did was delay, delay, delay.

        Wynn didn’t announce until January 2024, and Park was nominated on July 3, 2024. No matter how cooperative Tillis wanted to appear, he wasn’t cooperative at all, and he intended to hold those seats open until a Republican president took office.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Rick's avatar

      Grassley said he was keeping the blue slips so his word is worth anything, those SDNY seats should remain vacant for the next 3 years. (I can’t see any scenario where this WH and Schumer and Gillibrand agree on nominees). The only remotely possible option is if there are 3 vacancies, and the senators pick 2 of the nominees, the WH chooses the other ?. But even if a Schumer / Gillibrand nominee can get the nomination, another story to get the floor votes for confirmation.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I’m not sure why anybody can’t picture a scenario where NY vacancies get filled by Trump. It literally happened a handful of years ago with the same senators & president. A MAGA nominee was confirmed with some bland Democrat picks.

        The scenario I can’t see is a liberal, abortion rights nominee from a Democrat president being picked in a red state regardless of how many vacancies there are or regardless of any package deal. That is the scenario that would never happen as long as blue slips are around. But a MAGA nominee confirmed in a blue state, oh yea, I most certainly can see it happening. Especially with Democrat senators that agreed to that bull sh*t “deal” that left then-five circuit court seats go vacant for the next Republican president to fill just 13 months ago. Talk to me when Schumer or Gillibrand are no longer the senators of NY & I may agree that won’t happen then.

        Like

  29. Zack Jones's avatar

    Again, I get the frustration some folks have with what happened with Ryan Park and some of the other Circuit court nominees but we really need to stop pretending some of the Republican senators like Thom Tillis are folks people Democrats should learn from when it comes to “fighting” etc. and instead point out what he was able to do is why every election and seat matters.
    If we had flipped seats in Wisconsin and North Carolina in 2020 or 2022 or Maine, Manchin/Sinema could have been told to kick rocks along with Tillis or any other Republican on judicial nominations.
    But we didn’t and instead we had to count on people who had shown themselves to not always be reliable allies to keep doing so and at the end they didn’t and screwed us all over on the courts.
    As it was, it was a miracle we got as many judges confirmed as we did before Manchin and Sinema said no altogether to Circuit court nominees (Manchin has said he did as much at the end.)
    It sucks it has to be that way but the make up of the Senate and white voters having two different sets of standards for the Democratic and Republican parties means Democrats will sometimes be at the mercy of Blue dogs like Manchin/Sinema while Republicans won’t be and that Democrats have to always compromise while Republicans don’t.
    Those are factors that should be acknowledged instead of bashing Schumer/Democrats while making Thom Tillis and others out to be political mavericks every time.

    Liked by 2 people

  30. lilee2122's avatar

    I read a Politico news item dated Dec 6th about Immigration court judges…It seems like trump and his team have purged Dozens of immigration judges..The judges dont have life time tenure but this is totally uncalled for .It creates chaos and a reason for the administration to illegally deport thousands of immigrants , or citizens they don’t like…Scotus can you tell us where are our judges and congress people who are supposed to defend us ordinary people are? Do these people love our Statute of liberty and what it stands for?? Where does greed and corruption end? Obviously not in the highest court in our land as of now …. Remember those who support these immoral actions set precedents and what goes around comes around…

    Liked by 2 people

    • Mike's avatar

      I can’t even be angry at this point, just wish Dems were half as competent at installing long term power in the judiciary as Republicans.

      Dems tried to copy the massive GOP successful with confirmations in 2017 – 2020 and what did the GOP do when they’re back in power? They added 70 extra work days in the Senate to be able to confirm even more nominees in the same 365 days of a year.

      They will run out of red states with open vacancies by the summer at this rate.

      Liked by 1 person

  32. Britt's avatar

    This was the point of the deal, to be able to say they confirmed more judges than Trump. They forfeited the more important circuit court seats, but they get to tell their constituents that they got more judges than Trump

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Which is why it’s such a horrible deal. Because it is to only ONE more judge confirmed than Trump. If forgoes up to FIVE circuit court seat, all who have been filled by Trump judges who are young enough to be future SCOTUS possibilities for decades & Trump got a second term which will crush the number of Biden judges in the first half of this year. 

      Yesterday Trump posted about ending blue slips again. I truly hope Republicans go ahead & do away with them, albeit I hope the date is as close to January 20, 2029 as possible. 

      Like

    • shawnee68's avatar

      I respectfully disagree. I think the district courts are in most instances more important than the circuit courts.

      It has been the district judges who have been more effective at holding the DOJ’s feet to the fire.

      The judges on the these courts can hold you in contempt and/or toss you in jail. All of which can affect a young lawyer’s career.

      The appellate courts don’t do things like that because they don’t manage cases.

      Look at what is happening in the district court’s with the James and Comey indictments with the fake US Attorney’s. Those frivolous and abusive prosecutions are on life support.

      The appellate court’s have done much less in this regard. I have to say that I am pleased with the lower courts which includes Trump appointees.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      I don’t think there’s one correct answer on whether circuit or district judges are more important. Realistically, I think it depends on where those seats are.

      Some locations that I think having liberal district judges are really important in include

      D.C. (a lot of big cases go there)
      California (which frequently sues Trump and is currently fighting to stop Trump from taking control of its National Guard)
      Massachusetts (frequent forum for lawsuits against Trump)
      Texas (each liberal judge in Texas throws a wrench into the GOP’s judge shopping strategies)

      Liked by 1 person

  33. shawnee68's avatar

    @Dequan- Would you really have someone like Mike Lee or a pick of the assorted nuts who serve on the 5 Th Circuit?

    You know things are bad when our right wing Supreme Court reverses their decisions because they go to far.

    I did not think that it was possible to get to “right ” of Thomas and Alito.

    The 5th Circuit is proof that it is possible.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      So my position has always been clear. If Republicans & Democrats were on the same playing field, I would be perfectly fine with blue slips. My problem is they aren’t. 

      We have multiple cases of ultra conservative & MAGA judges in district court seats in blue states such as Illinois & New York. We have NO, ZERO, ZILCH cases of Planned Parenthood, ACLU or ultra liberal judges in district court seats in red states. 

      So my position is if it’s not going to be an even playing field because some Democrat senators would turn in blue slips for ultra conservative nominees while Republican senators wouldn’t do the same for ultra liberal nominees, I would rather get rid of blue slips. That way both sides are on an even playing field. 

      Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        The “playing field” isn’t level because the way select Senators favor smaller red states.

        The issues that you talk about arise out of the fact that red states have an advantage or a leg up that won’t be resolved by ditching the blue slips.

        If there were no blue slips Alina Habbas would be US Attorney in New Jersey. Why would Mitch McConnell allow Chuck Schumer to select judges in Kentucky?

        It’s not gonna happen. The only people who talk about ditching blue slips are people who are OUTSIDE of the Senate.

        What happens when you can’t win elections is you try to do a workaround to get the judiciary to do work that you can’t accomplish legislatively.

        It’s not what the court’s are created to do. I am fortunate to live in a state where laws that people want com from the legislature or ballot initiatives .

        We have a Supreme Court vacancy that was announced a few month ago. I have not heard a thing about it. We don’t rely on that court to get things done for us.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        This is where you continue to get it wrong. You are only looking at it from one side. You are not looking at the other side (Which is the literal meaning of even playing field). Again, nobody is arguing that blue slips CAN’T prevent MAGA ultra conservatives from blue states. What I am saying is it doesn’t prevent it 100% of the time. I would be ok with that except blue slips do prevent ultra (I would even argue moderately) liberal nominees in red states. That’s my beef with blue slips.

        Like

  34. Mike's avatar

    @shawnee68 This isn’t about district court seats vs circuit seats, a united and COMPETENT democratic Senate would have given us BOTH.

    That’s what the GOP has shown us is possible by adding extra 70 days, how many more votes could Dems have done with SEVENTY extra senate days in 2024? The GOP will confirm all vacant circuit seats (like they have now) AND they’ll confirm EVERY vacant red state district vacancy too. Oh and for fun they also changed the rules and can now confirm a 100 government nominees in ONE vote.

    One day I hope Dem voters like me will know what it feels like to have our cake and eat it too like conservatives do.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. shawnee68's avatar

    @Mike The Republicans mostly fall in line with a few exceptions in some cases like Rand Paul. On the other hand it is more complex with Democrats. Some them hail from red or purple states which makes matters more difficult.

    Also, the Democrats are more independent than conservatives. The notion that Chuck Schumer or anyone else can instruct them to act as he pleases is irrational and unrealistic.

    So, the Repuglicans have 70 extra days? You still won’t see them passing healthcare or any other substantive policies. They are one note: nominations and not much of anything else. Let them have bragging rights over that.

    I remember clearly when there were 60 Democrats which included red states. We get control again and with extra seat so longs as people who ought to be voting Democrat do so.

    What we have are people who are more interested in Israel/Palestine issues than what is happening here

    Like

  36. Ryan J's avatar

    Also, today, Paula Xinis ordered Kilmar Abrego Garcia released, and ICE actually complied with her order. This is another reason why district judges are important: they are the ones hearing cases like these.

    Although I stand by the comment I made minutes ago (“some judges are more important than others”), this really goes to show that sometimes, an important legal fight will occur in an unexpected place. Rumeysa Ozturk’s case was heard in Vermont because before ICE could ship her to Louisiana, they held her in Vermont for a night, and her lawyer filed the case that night (her lawyer filed in Massachusetts since they didn’t know where she was taken, but the Massachusetts judge ruled that Vermont was the proper venue).

    Also on an unrelated tangent, I have faith that most liberal, moderate, and even some conservative judges (though none on SCOTUS) will do the right thing in the end. Instagrammers are quick to judge judges.
    * Commenters slammed William K. Sessions III for not immediately ordering the release of Rumeysa Ozturk (who was in Louisiana at the time), but he scheduled a hearing as soon as he could, ordered her moved to Vermont, did the hearing, and ordered her released a few days later.
    * Charles Breyer (in Northern California) denied Newsom’s request for an immediate release of the California National Guard, but days later ordered the California National Guard returned to Newsom in a strongly worded opinion.
    * Lynn Adelman, a Wisconsin judge known to be liberal, is really testing my patience. Adelman ruled against Hannah Dugan (the judge who the FBI arrested in April for allegedly helping people escape ICE) and ordered the case to go to trial.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Mitch's avatar

    The SJC just voted to send three more judicial nominees to the full Senate.

    Nicholas Ganjei of Texas: a party-line vote of 12 to 10.

    David Fowlkes of Arkansas: a vote of 15 to 7.

    Aaron Peterson of Alaska: a vote of 14 to 8.

    Also three U.S. Attorneys were voted on. Party lines votes for William Boyle of North Carolina and Richard Price of Missouri. Andrew Benson got a vote of 19 to 3, obviously not controversial.

    About William Boyle, his father is a Federal Judge.

    Liked by 3 people

    • 39wimpyclues's avatar

      Turns out she had pancreatic cancer for three years and waited for a Republican to be President before she took senior status

      I’m just saying if she can wait for three years with terminal cancer then other liberal judges who are not, as far as I know, ailing or dying should not take senior status and let a young far-right hack replace them. Else, you’d end up turning your Missouri 5-4 liberal majority to a lopsided 8-1 right-wing majority

      Liked by 2 people

  40. Zack Jones's avatar

    The fact is both Robert Katzmann and Sandra Ikuta knew their conditions were terminal yet held on until the end because they didn’t want their seats to flip.
    Not everyone makes that calculation of course or can get away with it (RBG comes to mind) but these two did.
    Even if Ikuta had passed away, if she had done it at any point after July of 2024, a chance of getting a liberal replacement confirmed was next to zero.
    Former Senator Sinema was on Fox “news” yesterday and as with Manchin, more or less alluded to the fact they played hardball at the end with judicial nominees to try and encourage bipartisanship for the future.
    What a load of bull that cost us three seats in the end.

    Liked by 3 people

    • 39wimpyclues's avatar

      Exactly, and with all due respect to shawnee68, federal judges deciding on their retirement/senior status date is inherently political

      Maybe it wasn’t always like that, but I reckon that mindset started becoming more prominent in the 80s when Reagan appointed conservative/right-wing judges in their 30s-40s because he knew that their young age would allow them to stay in their courts for generations

      And Biden, for all his faults, was actually the first Dem president who recognized the importance of younger judges and actually started nominating judges in their 30s-40s. Even Obama didn’t realize that with his mostly older appointments

      What I’m saying is, liberal judges have an obligation to stay in their courts as long as possible lest their courts become right-wing (regardless of age or ailment). Conservative judges have known about this obligation for years and that’s why those geriatric dinos love staying in their courts until death/a Republican is president again. And if those liberal judges don’t start recognizing that, well I hope they’re fine with the knowledge that their successor is a young far-right hack who can stay in that court for generations (i.e., Eastern District of Missouri)

      Liked by 1 person

  41. shawnee68's avatar

    Politics happens in places outside of government. If you have job and report to work it’s there.

    In some instances I think you are correct that judges may consider who is in office when retiring. I don’t it’s a thing for EVERYBODY who serves on a court.

    I was present when Carter and Reagan were president. Carter wanted to diversify the courts and Reagan sought to shift the courts rightward.

    Since I was there in real time I don’t believe Reagan sought judges just because they were younger.

    I was Reagan who nominated Robert Bork to an associate justice and William Rehnquist top be Chief Justice and both were 60 at that time.

    It was both Bushes who were more intentional and said so that they wanted younger judges. However , it GW Bush who appointed Carlos Bea to the 9th Circuit when he was 70.

    What are the faults that Biden had? I am curious about that statement. In the context of judicial nominations he was the president that I have seen while I have been alive. ( the Senate rules for judicial nominations had changed) Aside from that, Biden was by far the best president that I have seen.

    If there is anyone disputes that then name someone who you think would be better on judges. It certainly wouldn’t be Bernie Sanders. ( I’ve never heard him talk about judges)

    No, liberal judges do not have an obligation to stay on the courts’ indefinitely for political considerations.

    I know that Dequan is from Florida so he has to think that way. It’s a state run by Republicans so they are desperate there.

    I think the younger generation are much too fickle when it comes to Democratic politics. You want someone perfect but can never name who that person is.

    It is entirely nonsensical to believe that judges are going fix this country.

    Like

    • Austin's avatar

      Reagan is probably the best President we’ve had for Judges I’d say, again not perfect but certainly very strong. He’s done a great job nominating young, intelligent, Originalist and Textualist which is vastly more important than merely nominating Young Conservatives. This is because the way you truly transform the Legal World, like any organization, is not merely thru taking power but by changing the way people think in the organization, outside it, and those who will one day join it. Regan is what really allowed the Conservative Legal Revolution to take off by empowering the pioneers of a completely new way to view the law. That being Originalism, Textualism, and Law and Economic Theory. Look no further than Judge Frank Easterbrook and his sheer influence on the legal system. Its figures like him Judge Benjamin Cardozo and Judge Learned Hand that are what define a ‘real’ judicial legacy much more than how a President influences the Ideological views of the US Court system for a mere decade or two. Because this is how you transform the future and do so with real staying power.Though when we look the Conservative Legal Revolution, we see famous figures like Scalia, Thomas (Then a chair of EEOC), Bork, Roberts (Then a member of the DOJ), and so many more. Who not only claimed power to influence the legal field as judges sometimes, but more often were given platforms, experience, and connections to actually redefine the way current judges, lawyers, as well as future lawyers, judges, and civilians (Voters) viewed the law, judges, and our Constitution.Naturally, I do believe Trump has the potential to surpass Reagan in the future but right now his influence is too new and can only be measured by pure power to shift decisions, which while great isn’t ‘real’ power and influence. ‘Real’ power allows you to redefine the way others view an issue and completely changes how they think including what Liberals who will oppose future Conservatives think about the Law and Constitution.

      Liked by 1 person

      • lilee2122's avatar

        True power remains with the people as in We The People….You dont cite Obama or Biden or Clinton judges…The old way the conservatives could claim power is not the same way anymore… Regan judges may have ushered in a powerful conservative movement within the realm of true conservatism..In the last decade theres been an erosion in qualifications of conservative judges… Some dont know the constitution , others dont care about it..this happens especially when the ultimate authority in our country doesnt know nor care about the constitution.. Need I cite illegal activities and constitutional interpretations to end rules and words to claim real power and convince us lowly common people to go along with it? We are not that dumb…Our consituation is iron clad even those a few higher judges think not. Scotus judge Thomas , young republican groups leaked chats etc I do however agree the Democrats platform needs more clearer messaging….

        Liked by 1 person

      • shawnee68's avatar

        When Trump is gone his cult will be too. They’ll have nothing to cling to. It’s already falling apart.

        What are you talking about ? Bork was not confirmed and Clarence Thomas ran the EEOC into the ground.

        Thomas allowed ADEA – age discrimination cases to lapse while they pending at his agency.

        It took an act of congress to fix it but not before lawyers from his agency were scolded by a federal judge. Thomas himself was nearly held in contempt.

        I have not heard of anyone who believes Thomas is good judge. You can say that about Scalia but certainly not Thomas.

        People who weren’t around for 12 years of Reagan and Bush don’t realize that it was winning ELECTIONS not JUDGES that created the climate for the GOP and some their crony judges to wreck this country is not the GOP: it’s the cult of Trump.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I think you saying Thomas is not a good job & nearly held in contempt only further proves everyone’s point. His vote counts just as much as the judges who are good & who weren’t held in contempt. A judge not being a good judge doesn’t mean crap. A judge not being on the bench is the only thing stopping them from making rulings that count just as much as any see judge (Absent judge Newman). 

        Like

  42. shawnee68's avatar

    Do you suck at your job? Of course it matters. I am not OCD on courts like some of the folks here.

    I may not like things they do up there but it hasn’t changed. I think its liberals in red states looking for someone to bail them out.

    You have to win elections and maybe then your ocd on courts will subside.

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      I don’t have a job with a lifetime appointment, so I am not sure what the comparison would be for this subject. If the Supreme Court (Or federal judges in general) weren’t lifetime appointments, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. 

      Like

      • Scott Royce's avatar

        Indicative, I think, of just how crucially important the whole judge issue really is, are a couple of posts on National Review’s Bench Memos this week. One honors William Bauer, a Nixon (seriously) appointee who recently died at 99. According to the author, he was “still hearing cases until three years ago” on the 7th Circuit. Ed Whelan promptly one-upped him, celebrating the 9th Circuit’s J. Clifford Wallace, another Nixon pick who “continues to serve in senior status”–at 97. Imagine the damage that Trump’s judicial clowns are going to inflict on the country if they live even close to that long…

        Liked by 1 person

  43. shawnee68's avatar

    I don’t believe that just because someone was appointed by Trump that they will act like him.

    The 5th Circuit and 9th Circuit have a lot nuts but someone like Emil Bove will not be free to do as he pleases.There are other judges there and they don’t owe anything to Trump.

    This Trupism will go away when he is gone or even earlier if people give the Democrats the numbers to fix things.

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      I don’t think you have an understanding of what’s going on. There is not an infinite number of federal judgeships. There’s around 900 or so. Trump has appointed a significant number of them. You act as if everything is rosey. It isn’t. 

      The Supreme Court is packed 6-3. We have to hope John Roberts or ACB are sensible on important cases. And the circuit courts isn’t much better. We haven’t even reached the first year of Trump 2.0. A LOT of things can go wrong in 3 years. Stop acting as though things aren’t as bad as they are for those of us that care about democracy & our rights. Your outlook on the judiciary isn’t reflected in reality. 

      Like

  44. shawnee68's avatar

    There’s no need for bedwetting every time someone who calls themself a conservative gets confirmed to a court in any red or blue state.

    As George Will once said on a similar matter “It’s an insect in the salad of life.”You are not going to able to keep conservatives from serving on the court’s.

    On my Apple newsfeed and The NY Times much has been said about the blue slips. I’ve seen articles from all angles and they all conclude with a quote from a GOP Senator that the policy will not be changed.

    Let me know when you reach that conclusion and tell me that I am right. I will be pleased as punch to hear from you.

    If we can get folks who ought to be voting for Democrats to the polls we can get control of the Senate and the White House.

    Since Thomas and Alito are extremely close to retirement age it should behoove you to get onboard with the changes that will come from the Democrats.

    INone of these judges you are talking about have stopped me from going about my business.

    Like

  45. Ethan's avatar

    Hi everybody, Ethan here checking in. Ever since Harsh has stopped updating this blog, I’ve been hoping someone would step up and fill the void of covering this important issue. I considered doing so myself but I do not have time. However, I recently discovered a Substack blog called “nomination notes” (https://nominationnotes.substack.com/), written by a fellow named Patrick McNeil, who has a background in civil rights advocacy.

    No disrespect to Harsh, but since he no longer has the time to make new posts as well as the fact that WordPress’s comments section has its issues of there sometimes being a queue of comments waiting for approval which Harsh has no time check, I am inviting people to move the discussion on Trump-era nominees to the comments section of his posts.

    While he doesn’t write an analysis of every single nominee, he posts regularly including analyses of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings and many of the discussions in this comments section are more closely related to the things he is posting about. I reached out to him via e-mail (which he posts publicly on his Substack) and he said that if people start having discussions in his comments section, he too might chime in.

    Even if we don’t all migrate over there, I still encourage everyone to subscribe.

    Liked by 1 person

  46. Mike's avatar

    Interesting substack, not sure I can handle the rage I feel with looking at these articles: Judicial Nominee Tells Republican Senator: “I Believe Every Word of the Bible”

    Oh another note fun blood boiling reminder, the Biden team and Senate left the Superior Court of the District of Columbia with nearly as many vacancies as confirmations after 4 years of Dem control.

    Trump has started to confirm judges for those 15 year terms.

    Liked by 1 person

  47. Mike S.'s avatar

    Thank you for sharing the substack link. I will check that out further. It would seem that the writer is very far to the left politically, but I do appreciate the detailed articles on the nomination hearings.

    In general, provided that the nominees for the DC Superior Court are coming from the bipartisan nominations committee, I do not have an issue with Trump filling seats on that court. They do need more judges.

    I am genuinely surprised more judges have not announced they are assuming senior status, especially circuit court judges. I think Trump 2.0 has been so insane, they feel compelled to remain. I think the Emil Bove nomination, which is an embarrassment on so many levels, was a huge mistake and will deter more judges to stay on the bench.

    Liked by 1 person

  48. lilee2122's avatar

    We have another wonderful , steadfast Biden judge in Jia Cobb, of the DC district court …. She has blocked this .latest “rule” that congressional oversight members need to inform ICE one week in advance to schedule their surprise oversight visits..

    Thank you Judge Cobb!

    Liked by 1 person

  49. Mitch's avatar

    In Wisconsin, Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan was found guilty of felony obstruction of justice. She faces up to six years in prison. I don’t think she’ll get locked up, but she’ll lose her law license and be disqualified from being any kind of judge.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      Lynn Adelman’s decisions have been disappointing so far. First, he ruled against her immunity claim, which stemmed from none other than Trump v. United States. Now, the head juror is saying that he and other jurors were uncomfortable convicting Dugan but felt forced to do so given Adelman’s instructions.

      Really hoping that Adelman comes to his senses and gives Dugan a light sentence with no jail time.

      Like

Leave a reply to beyondnonjd Cancel reply