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.

1,395 Comments

    • Dequan's avatar

      That’s what Trump wants. 7 circuit court nominees & I don’t think any of them were over 47 years old. Most were younger than 43. It’s why Clarence Thomas is going to break the record for longest serving justice. It’s why ACB was able to replace RBG. Because Republicans get it. The younger the nominee, the more likely they will stay on the bench longer than an older nominee.

      It’s pure math. Math that for the most part, Democrats have yet to figure out. Biden did a good job but saying the New Jersey AG was too young to nominate to the 3rd Circuit only for Trump to turn around & put judges on the circuit court that would make him look like a senior citizen, only shows how far Democrats have to go to recapture the courts.

      Liked by 1 person

      • beyondnonjd's avatar

        Has anyone seen Smith’s birth year yet? 2010 J.D. grad without work experience is probably 1985.

        The other 6 via the SJQs:

        Hermandorfer – b. 1987 (39 in 2026)

        Tung – b. 1984 (42 in 2026)

        Dunlap – b. 1983 (43 in 2026)

        Taibleson – b. 1983 (43 in 2026)

        Bove – b. 1981 (45 in 2026)

        Mascott – b. 1976 (50 in 2026)

        Only Mascott surprises me. In Trump 2.0 on the circuits, I’d be surprised if we see (1) any Erickson/Engelhardt situations (older district judges being elevated who are close-ish to Rule on 80); (2) any Bennett situations (a 60+ year old judge who reaches Rule of 80 in 10 years).

        Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        Yea I would guess he was born around 1985. Out of all the lies Trump tells, he has been rock solid when it comes to the courts, sadly. At this point the best we can hope for is little to no more circuit court vacancies this year & Democrats pull a midterm miracle to block any more judges the final 2 years because Trump is hitting it out of the ballpark when it comes to the circuit courts & SCOTUS.

        Like

    • Mike S.'s avatar

      You beat me to announcing this… (Ed Whelan posted this on Twitter this afternoon). Genuinely surprised Sutton announced he is going senior. I assumed he would stay on the bench until his tenure as Chief Judge ended in 2028.

      Sutton, if I am remembering correctly, was under active consideration previously for a SCOTUS seat at one time.

      Liked by 1 person

      • beyondnonjd's avatar

        I think our only Saudi-born Article III judge!

        https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/sutton-jeffrey-s

        The Sixth has a de facto en banc override mechanism given the very divided 10-6 composition. Stranch to Campbell would have made that 9-7. Been thinking more about the behind the scenes of the CCA1, CCA3, CCA4, and CCA6 seats recently.

        Also on the Sixth, Republicans would love Griffin to go senior before the midterms too. Turning 74 this year. Still kind of crazy to me that people are even contemplating a D+4, since the 53-47 Senate after 2024 made it feel like a leisurely four years to replace judges without needing to get too into the politics of strategic retirements.

        Liked by 1 person

      • beyondnonjd's avatar

        I get that judges are generally wired different than I am. But if I could get paid the same amount to work 25% of the time, I’d be happy to do so.

        They also give up a lot of money in the private sector for these positions that pay less than a first-year BigLaw associate. And at least on the district side, it seems like a ton of work on overstretched courts. See, FJC seat recommendations, JUDGES Act bill, etc.

        65 isn’t too old to “retire” from the bench and go back into private practice for some people who enjoy working. Thinking of Kent Jordan on that front. https://www.rlf.com/lawyers/kent-a-jordan/.

        I’m sure this gets talked about privately all the time. I wonder how much publicly. I’ve seen a few articles, especially around the Obama-era judges who went back to private practice. But cost of living, kids, mortgages, retirements, etc. is a real thing.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      The one thing that all/most of these judges going senior have in common is that they were ineligible to go senior during Trump’s first term. Most of the older judges who had a chance to go senior under Trump 1.0 and didn’t, even partisans like Edith Jones & Jerry Smith, are not budging.

      Like Mike S., I was thinking Sutton would stick around until 2028. Given Sutton goes senior on October 1, the chief judge lineup is now Kethledge 2026 – Thapar 2033 – Murphy 2039 – Bloomekatz 2046. Had Sutton stayed until 2028, Murphy would stay chief judge until 2049 and Bloomekatz would be blocked from being chief (though if the Trump judges really hate Bloomekatz, there is still a way for them to block her from becoming chief).

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Ryan J's avatar

    In other judicial news, the Supreme Court ruled AGAINST Trump’s tariffs by a 6-3 vote. The vote breakdown is complicated but basically it’s 6-3 with Thomas, Alito, & Kavanaugh dissenting.

    ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the
    opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A–1, and II–B, in which
    SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined, and
    an opinion with respect to Parts II–A–2 and III, in which GORSUCH and
    BARRETT, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., and BARRETT, J., filed concurring
    opinions. KAGAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring
    in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, JJ., joined.
    JACKSON, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the
    judgment. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. KAVANAUGH, J., filed
    a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        In addition to Daniel Domenico, J. Bishop Grewell, & William E. Trachman, I’ve also seen Josh Craddock, who’s currently working in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, mentioned. I thought Domenico should have been the pick for the 10th in his first term. Maybe he will get it right this time around. But having to backfill the district court seat with two Democrat senators will likely mean somebody else.

        Like

      • Mitch's avatar

        @Dequan

        I think you’re right about Daniel Domenico, it would be too much trouble to fill his District Court seat.

        I think that Josh Craddick is a name to watch. If lilee2122 is alarmed by Justin Smith’s youthful appearance, she’ll have a stroke when she sees what the 34 y/o Craddick’s looks like.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. Zack Jones's avatar

    Sadly not surprised at some of the names I’m seeing going senior status.

    They are very partisan judges and there is no way any of them were going to risk their seats flipping down the line.

    Debra Ann Livingston in particular irks me because she was confirmed after Democrats had the senate.

    No reason George W should have been allowed to have any more right wing nominees confirmed.

    As to the replacements like Justin Smith, Republicans have been playing the long game on the courts for a long time, Edith Jones was put on the 5th Circuit when she was just 35 years old.

    And finally, there aren’t any Manchins/Sinemas on the Republican side who will gum up the works on judicial nominees.

    The replacements will be confirmed, just a question of how horrible they’ll be.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Zack Jones's avatar

    On a different note, I’m pretty sure Alito and Thomas will be retiring in the next couple of years.

    The chance to replace them was lost when Harris didn’t win and Democrats didn’t keep the Senate.

    As bad as that is, the true damage done to SCOTUS was in Trump’s first term when Kennedy (though he choose to retire) was replaced by someone to his right and RBG rolling the dice with her health ended up with her being replaced by Barrett.

    The sad reality is 2016 was the last chance to get a moderate/liberal SCOTUS in our lifetime’s and Democratic voters blew it.

    So here we are.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. 39wimpyclues's avatar

    The Surest Path to Becoming a Trump Judge Is Being On His Legal Team | Balls and Strikes

    Just read this article and apparently the judicial nominee for the Montana vacancy is barely 32?! She’s about to make Kathryn Kimball Mizelle look like Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    For all conservatives gripes bout Biden supposedly favoring diversity over qualifications (which ain’t even true since all his nominees were supremely qualified), they sure do love nominating lawyers with nary a lick of experience or qualifications

    Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I don’t agree a nominees youth is an automatic reason to say they are a bad nominee. If a nominee is in their low 30’s but has a background that has prepared them for the job, I’m fine with it. We have seen some horrible judges that were put on the bench who are two decades older. 

        And on another topic, congratulations to all the nominees who won their primaries last Tuesday night. I particularly want to congratulate my mother who decided last year she was tired of sitting on the sidelines complaining & decided to jump into the race for her county’s commissioner. She advanced last Tuesday to the Democrat primary election this May in the great state of Georgia against a long time incumbent. I’m also super excited about the prospects of James Talarico in the US senate race in Texas. 

        Liked by 2 people

    • Ryan J's avatar

      Within a decade, all 7 seats will have changed hands. Gableman retired in 2018, Abrahamson retired in 2019, Kelly lost in 2020, Roggensack retired in 2023, AW Bradley retired in 2025, R Bradley retiring in 2026, and Ziegler retiring in 2027.

      The 7 new justices are Rebecca Dallet (liberal), Brian Hagedorn (moderate conservative), Jill Karofsky (liberal), Janet Protasiewicz (liberal), Susan Crawford (liberal), and the last 2 are TBD. Also, I’d imagine that RBG would be very happy with the number of women on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The court currently has 6 women, with Hagedorn as the only man. If Chris Taylor wins next month’s race, which I think she will due to backlash against Trump, the court will continue to have 6 women and 1 man.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a reply to Ryan J Cancel reply