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.

1,603 Comments

  1. Dequan's avatar

    I’ve been binge watching movies over the past few days. Usually, I mix older movies I haven’t seen with new movies. I’m on my sixth movie watching Risky Business & you will never believe who was sitting behind Tom Cruise in the second to last scene of the movie in the restaurant… None other than a young Senator Dick Durbin.

    I know former Senator Patrick Leahy was in two of the Batman Dark Knight movies. In one move Keith Ledger (The Joker) held a knife to his throat when crashing Bruce Wayne’s party. He had an even quicker cameo as a board member when Bruce Wayne was kicked out of the meeting because he was no longer a member.

    Anybody else know movies where a UsS Senator has a cameo?

    Like

    • Ryan J's avatar

      For now, I think the Democrats should vote no. It appears that she had sex with a police officer, who is not one of her subordinates. I would think differently if the sexual encounter was with one of her law clerks or other subordinates.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I would vote no if I was in the senate but for different reasons. If Republicans are fine with a convicted sexual assaulter & 30 plus time felony being the most powerful person in our government, I’m sure as Hell not gonna bat an eye for anything that I’ve read about Judge Ross so far.

        We can’t keep having two different sets of rules. Al Franken can’t be a US Senator but Trump can be president??? Naaaa, miss me with that crap

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Mitch's avatar

    A few hours ago, the U.S. Senate voted to invoke cloture onAnthony Mattivi for the District Court of Kansas. He’ll be confirmed either tonight or tomorrow.

    Like

Leave a comment