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.

1,280 Comments

  2. Rick's avatar

    CNN also just reported Bove will be nominated to 3rd Circuit.

    Thanks (to some) Senate Democrats. You whined and complained about Mangi’s nomination. Now you’ll be getting one of the most rabid partsians ever as his replacement

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Zack's avatar

    Yup, this was a self inflicted wound that shouldn’t have happened.
    It was clear Mangi didn’t have the votes to be confirmed and when his nomination expired in at the end of the 2023 session, that should have been that.
    Instead, Biden and whomever was advising him on this seat clung to the notion that he was a hill to die lest we anger Muslim voters etc. instead of losing sight of the greater good in ensuring a Circuit Court seat didn’t flip and we kept the majority on the 3rd Circuit 7-7 Democratic.
    Now, at just 44 years old, Bove will have a seat for life that NEVER should have open and Republicans will have control of the 3rd Circuit once again.
    What a pointless self inflicted wound.

    Liked by 1 person

    • shawnee68's avatar

      This comes up all of the time. At the end of Trump’s first term they left a 9th Circuit seat open that went to Jennifer Sung.

      I think what transpired is the Nevada Senators Cortez- Masto and Rosen were unwilling to fight for Mangi because there was no upside for them.

      I was shocked and saddened when Trump won Nevada.

      I am ready to move on from looking for people to assign blame for something that ALWAYS happens: unfilled judicial vacancies.

      At least we got Embry Kidd who Dequan will meet with shortly. The GOP messed up on that one. They had the votes to sink his nomination but failed

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Rick's avatar

    They also left a 7th Circuit seat open as Joel Flaum took senior status in late Nov 2020. But by then, Trump was too busy trying to overturn the 2020 election so there was no way they were going to have enough time to fill that seat.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Mitch's avatar

    Trump has also announced judicial nominees for Florida. They include:

    Ed Artau: currently a judge on the state Court of Appeals, for the Southern District of Florida, formerly a judge on Palm Beach Circuit Court.

    Jordan Pratt: currently a judge on the a judge on the state Court of Appeals, for the Middle District of Florida. Zack predicted him.

    Kyle Dudek: currently a Federal Magistrate Judge, formerly an Associate at Henderson, Franklin, Stearns, and Holt.

    Anne Leigh Gaylord Moe: currently a judge on the state Court of Appeals, formerly a judge on Hillsborough County Circuit Court, was an equity shareholder at Bush Ross, P.A. before becoming a judge.

    John Guard: currently the state Deputy Attorney General, formerly an AUSA and a former aide to Ashley Moody.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ethan's avatar

      @Mitch,

      I was familiar with Pratt, Guard, and Dudek. I had not heard of Artau or Gayloard Moe but it appears they are both active Federalist Society members, with Artau being a founding member of the Miami chapter.

      Dudek is the least bad but it could simply be that they specifically wanted someone based in Fort Myers for that seat.

      Combining this news with the news of Emil Bove’s nomination to the 3rd circuit, this is not a good way to start my birthday (which is tomorrow, Thursday 5/29).

      I hope enough Republicans vote against Bove to keep him off the bench but I’m not getting my hopes up.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Mit's avatar

      @Dequan

      Two things I’ve picked up. One is that Ed Artau is 60 y.o That’s surprising, given how Trump had a reputation for seeking youngish nominees.

      Also, on paper, Governors play no role in Federal judicial selections. Yet four of these people were appointed to thier current positions by Ron DeSantis. I can’t help but think he played a role in their nominations.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I would think a governor would have a larger role if both US senators were of the opposite Party as the president. I think in this case it’s more likely we just have a two term governor so it makes sense he would have a role in some of the nominees background if the senators are looking for state court judges to fill some vacancies. I doubt DeSantis had a direct role in any of the picks.

        Like

  7. Joe's avatar

    Hey everyone. Been a long time but dropping in to say that the Bove nomination is unfortunate and also very predictable.

    Frankly, I will never really understand the rationalization in the minds of Sinema, Manchin, Rosen, others in sinking the Mangi nomination (as well as the other appellate nominees). After the election, it was always extremely obvious based on Trumps past behavior that he was going to make hard line conservative picks. Even if you have a problem with Mangi, you have to face the reality that the only options were either him or a far right culture warrior. Why leadership couldn’t lock everyone in a room, clunk everyone’s heads together, and get everyone to agree to mutually support all the nominees is beyond me. The appellate nominees should’ve been done before Thanksgiving, then you can come back and do the district nominees, preferably in order from most controversial to least controversial.

    I know Sinema and Manchin are basically gone from politics now, but one Bove has his hearing I would love to see an aspiring political reporter in Nevada try to get Cortez Masto or Rosen on the record with this question. That’s almost certainly wishful thinking, though.

    Anyway, it’s still not too late for Jane Stranch to rescind her notification of senior status.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Yup. And when (Not if, but when) they get rid of blue slips for district court nominees. I will applaud them too. good riddance. Since Democrats won’t do it first, at least let Republicans do it with less than 50 vacancies. I wouldn’t be surprised if they reduce the cloture time for circuit court nominees before its all said & done as well. As I’ve said numerous times on here, Republicans are about to show you what it means to be in the majority.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I could see around 2027 as well. More so because it should take about that long to filter out the circuit court, red state district court & all other non judicial nominees. Then Trump & conservatives will start to throw a fit about how they can’t fill vacancies the finally 2 years of the term.

        Like

  10. Ryan J's avatar

    I’m keeping internal tabs on all these rulings against Trump, but (with occasional exceptions) I’ve decided to stop editing the judges’ Wikipedia pages for the time being, partially because I’m way too busy to make edits regarding every one, but also because it makes it easier for MAGA’s to go after those judges.

    Additionally, I’ve stopped fighting “Privmaman” who claims it’s illegal to show federal judges’ birthdates (it’s not, but their birthdate is personal information and so not knowing their birthdates might make it a bit harder for MAGA’s to track them). Plus, I’ve already memorized so many of their birthdates that I don’t really care whether it’s on the Wikipedia page or not.

    If we see the light in 2029, I might need to take a week off work to update federal judges’ Wikipedia pages

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Mitch's avatar

    Back on May 20, Senator Richard Blumenthal announced that he would put holds on every judicial and justice department nominee, including those who are not controversial. Maybe he overreached. He may have contributed to the nomination of Emil Bove. He gave Republicans the idea that Democrats have no interest in acting in good faith, so why should they negotiate with them on nominees?

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Mike's avatar

    So the hearing is for 37 year old Whitney D. Hermandorfer today + 4 Missouri district seats.

    So much for the thought that judge Stranch had veto power over her successor and that’s why one of her former clerks was chosen to succeed her under Biden.

    Don’t look like Hermandorfer ever clerked for her but did clerk for 3 of the conservative SC members.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. lilee2122's avatar

    Regarding today’s judicial nominations Devine definitely has a temper and is not suitable for a judgeship I get a bad feelng with him.. I was surprised Blustone had a more even handed persona even tho his credentials are lacking… Senator Kennedy was in a little tit for tat with Hermandorfer before Hawley cut him off to go to district judges… It will be interesting how this all plays out.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Mitch's avatar

    I haven’t found which duty station that Emil Bove will be assigned to if confirmed. I expect that the New Jersey courthouse will be where he’s assigned.

    Relationships still matter in the Senate. Most Republican Senators have no use for Cory Booker, regarding him as a petulant partisan only interested in bring attention to himself. By contrast, Chris Coons is well-liked across the aisle. He’s considered a serious legislator. I don’t rule out a compromise nominee for the Delaware vacancy for that reason.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I think we are forgetting three things about this vacancy… 

        1. Trunk could easily move this seat from Delaware. The case has been made that Delaware doesn’t see the two seats on the circuit with its population & now that one of the other two states has a Republican senator, Trump could easily move the seat from this blue state. 

        2. Even if Trump keeps the seat in Delaware, there’s not being keeping him from nomination a carpetbagger. Remember he shoved VanDyke down the throats of the two blue state Nevada senators in his first term. 

        3. Delaware is the corporation headquarters of the most companies in the country. Trump could use a right wing hack that’s a legal counsel or has a relationship with a firm based in Delaware, even if they personally may live in another adjacent state. 

        Anybody saying this seat won’t go to a right wing hack for any reason at all hasn’t been watching. I fully expect a right wing hack to be nominated to this seat. 

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Well I watched the SJC hearing & a few things stuck out to me. For the Whitney Hermandorfer panel 1, I think she did much better with her record against the Democrats than a similar liberal nominee would have done with Republicans on the SJC. The Democrats were too cordial with her. Senator Whitehouse didn’t even ask one question, instead using his time to talk about Leonard Leo & his takeover of the courts. That was a waste to me. To be honest the senator that asked her the toughest questions was republican Senator Kennedy.

        As bad as that was, panel 2 was even worse. Josh Divine is probably the worst person imaginable district court nominee nominated by a Republican president this side of Matthew Kacsmaryk. I gotta tell you he ran circles around the Democrats. He crushed senator Durbin in their exchange. Senator Padilla did a decent job of trying to press him but he (Along with “Chairman” Hawley interjecting at the end of every Democrats questioning to assist) did a good job responding. He even opened his introductions by saying when he clerked for judge Pryor, he remembers he strived to give equal justice to all & he will model that jurisprudence. He even had me believing him for about 15 seconds until I remembered his record.

        Here is the worst part. More than half of the Democrats didn’t even bother to show up. That’s right. The first SJC hearing of Trump’s second term & more than HALF of the Democrats didn’t even bother to show up. No senator Hirono to at least ask her regular two questions about sexual harassment. No senator Booker, no senator Ossoff & numerous other no shows. It’s embarrassing & disgusting. More Republicans showed up than Democrats.

        So yea, it was as bad as everybody has been saying. And it didn’t have to be…smh

        Like

  23. shawnee68's avatar

    Thanks for the recap.They all have other committee assignments . I know many here only care about Judiciary committee .

    There are other areas the budget and Social Security that require undivided attention .

    I know it’s a thing for some to bark at nominees but at the end of the day the numbers that GOP has makes confirmation inevitable .

    This “in your face” stuff that people partake in (especially in Ca) will not make things better.

    We have to move on from this.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      No problem. And I’m not so much worried about in your face approach. At least show up. I would be willing to bet most (If not all) of the senators that didn’t show up were not in another committee hearing at the time. And even if they were (Which let’s be honest, they weren’t), they could switch around when they spoke at either committee to show up to both. No excuse other than death or sickness in their family. The judiciary is too important to not even show up & try.

      Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        The budget is job one. If this bill passes many people’s lives will be destroyed .

        All of these judges will be confirmed. There are no @Sinemas” or “Manchins” on the GOP side.

        They can have the nominees answer questions in writing. But what purpose would that serve? They’ll dance around the questions and get confirmed.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        If Republicans thought the same way you did when they were in the minority, we would have judge Park, Mangi, Campbell, Lipez, Gaston & Netburn on the bench right now. Sadly they don’t think like that & show up or at least try to sink nominees.

        Like

  24. shawnee68's avatar

    Dequan- Is those judges the pressing issues of the day?

    I’m sorry but 99.99 % of Democratic voters don’t care about judges .

    There’s some resistance to the “big awful bill.” As such , the focus needs to be there.

    What we need is focus.

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      If a senator can’t walk & chew gum at the same time, I think they are in the wrong field. The budget bill is important & federal judges are important. We only get 100 senators out of a country of over 340 million people. I at least need them to show up to work. If not, then step aside & let somebody else that can do both do it. It’s embarrassing that more senators from the majority party showed up to the hearing, let alone asked tougher questions.

      Like

    • Ryan J's avatar

      The big awful bill has a provision that strips judges’ abilities to enforce a ruling via contempt unless a bond has been issued

      5 justices on SCOTUS seem open to killing nationwide injunctions

      The T**** admin knows that judges are the last roadblock to its agenda and is therefore trying to strip them of their power

      Liked by 1 person

  25. shawnee68's avatar

    Sorry about the faulty subject verb agreement .

    Do you think the GOP sets the hearing date and time so all Dems can join?

    I know you don’t really believe a 5 minute Q and A will change the outcome of any of the judicial nominees.

    It happens quite frequently and no expects you to be two places at once.

    Like

      • Ryan J's avatar

        I’ve previously railed about how Dems were disenfranchising Feinstein (and therefore California) because she couldn’t fly across the country.

        The Dem SJC rule of not allowing proxy votes to count as the deciding vote was stupid. If the GOP SJC majority were just 11-10 and Grassley is hospitalized for a prolonged period of the time, the SJC would absolutely find a way to count Grassley’s vote.

        Hell, if the GOP had a 50-50 majority and one of their senators had a prolonged absence, I bet they would allow Senators to proxy vote to ensure the absent Senator could vote.

        Liked by 1 person

  26. Zack's avatar

    @Dequan,
    I agree with Shawnee68 here, there is NOTHING Democratic senators could do or say that will stop any of these nominees from being confirmed because they have 53 senators, which we never had at any point in time under Biden (We would have seen Mangi and others confirmed if that was the case.)
    Also, there are no Manchin/Sinemas to gum up the works on that side either.
    There are bigger fish to fry at the moment but more to the point, Democratic voters have made clear again and again they don’t care about the courts, one can’t blame Democratic senators for not “fighting” the way some folks think they should given that.

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      I just don’t see how showing up or trying at all is a bad thing. I certainly don’t see how that interferes with voting no in a committee hearing or on the floor for any other business. And again, even if Democrats had 53 senators, I guarantee you the Republican minority would still show up & over a 4-year span, I bet you they would tank at least one nominee due to their committee hearing. Probably more. Just show up for God’s sake. You never know what can happen. We keep saying 53 votes. 2 of those 53 are Collins & Murkowski so with a bad nominee, you probably only need to sway 2 more Republicans.

      I’m sorry but asking questions in writing isn’t gonna get the job done. This is America. Americans need videos of those 30 second sound bites when a nominee answers a question badly to tank their nominee. I guarantee you had senator Kennedy asked Charnelle Bjelkengren the functions of Article II and Article V and the meaning of purposivism on a written questionnaire that she had a week to answer, she would have aced the answer.

      Like

  27. Mike's avatar

    Gotta hand it to the Republicans, MO will have all 4 vacancies filled in one fell swoop. Very impressive.

    I figure Cruz and Scott will fill most if not all of the Texas and Florida vacancies by the end of the year.

    Only bright side is that Trump 1.0 and Biden confirmed over 50% of the District and Circuit seats so I just don’t think there will be many vacancies made to fill. In 6 months this year only 7 new vacancies have been announced.

    I think Trump 2.0 will confirm under 150 total judges.

    Sadly, two will be Supreme Court justices.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Ethan's avatar

        @Mitch,

        So there’s three Eastern District of Louisiana vacancies (all in New Orleans). I don’t have any obvious names I’m keeping an eye on since many of the conservative Louisiana state government lawyers live in Baton Rouge (or at least work there). I need to do more research on the adjunct faculty at Tulane and Loyola.

        And then the Western District of Louisiana has one vacancy, in Shreveport. I have my eye on the following people:

        • Scott Chaffin (born c. 1979), in private practice
        • Seth Reeg (born c. 1982), an AUSA
        • Jeff Robinson (born c. 1966), a judge on Louisiana’s Second Circuit Court of Appeal
        • Brandon Thibodeaux (born c. 1982), in private practice.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Joe's avatar

      I expect Alito to retire next summer.

      Not sure on Thomas. He will become the longest serving SCOTUS justice in summer 2028. I feel pretty strongly he’ll stay on at least that long. He may want to go longer or he may retire that summer as well to give Trump a 5th SCOTUS pick.

      I don’t see Roberts or any of the younger justices retiring.

      Liked by 1 person

      • shawnee68's avatar

        Alito and Thomas are not going anywhere anytime soon.

        It has been reported that they do not intend to retire during Trump’s term.

        Those two have supported Trump more consistently than Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and especially Barrett.

        They are VERY unhappy with her and are suggested that she mislead them during the vetting process.

        I had to throw this in but Rand Paul and his family were uninvited to the annual White House picnic. lol

        Liked by 1 person

    • Ethan's avatar

      @Mitch, I don’t know who is applying. There’s two vacancies in Kansas City and one in Wichita. The only name on my obvious watchlist is Bradley Scholzman (born c. 1971), who served as US Attorney for the District of Kansas during the George W. Bush administration and is currently President of the Wichita Federalist Society chapter.

      Liked by 1 person

    • shawnee68's avatar

      You can always find someone to agree with on a matter. Does not mean that you are right.

      It’s wishful thinking to assume that you can sink a nominee with 5 min rounds of questions. Please don’t insult us by referring to Bjelgrenken.

      That was a stunt that you fell for. She still serves as a judge on a state court which not much different than a federal court.

      I was pleased to see Sen Padilla back in Ca doing something meaningful rather than wasting time with roll call votes where the outcome is guaranteed for the nominee .

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        No that’s where you are wrong. It was a stunt that the US Senate fell for. And now she’s not a federal judge. Just like Sarah Netburn. And the likelihood is, if Republicans didn’t show up to their SJC hearing, both of them would be federal judges today.

        Thats my point. You can call it a stunt all you want (You probably are right btw) but the stunt works often times. What NEVER works is what you are suggesting Democrats to do now, which is nothing.

        Like

  31. shawnee68's avatar

    It was essentially a 50/50 Senate. That’s not even close to what we have now.

    Do you think JD Vance will have to be called in to vote on a lower court judge? Of course not.

    The two extra Senators that the GOP has is greater than than the sum of their parts.

    So what if a couple judges from blue states were not confirmed? Do you think they will be replaced by right wingers?

    I am ok with Senators missing votes where the outcome is known. It makes sense there but certainly not in House.

    Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I think what a person does for entertainment is a lot less important than what they do for their country. So to the root of the issue, doing something is what matters regardless of what the odds are that what you do is successful or not.

        I’m sure the people that fought for their rights in the 60’s would look at the 53-47 senate composition today & would gladly take that being the biggest obstacle to stopping right wing extremism from getting lifetime appointments to the bench to take away those rights for the next 30-40 years. So I stand by my initial statement. Doing nothing should never be an option.

        Like

  34. Mitch's avatar

    The Supreme just issued an important ruling. In Martin vs. United States, the Court ruled in favor of a family whose house was raided by the FBI, complete with the front door being smashed in, a flash grenade set off indoors, and occupants being assailed by agents. And it turned out, the FBI had raided the wrong house.

    The case is not over, but this will help the plaintiffs in their pending suit. Incidentally, the Court’s ruling was 9-0, with Neil Gorsuch writing the majority opinion.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      ***Judge Embry Kidd Investiture ceremony***

      Hi all. Last month I mentioned I was thankful to the blog for an opportunity I got & I would talk more about it once it happened. Well, that opportunity was Judge Embry Kidd invited me to his Investiture ceremony which occurred yesterday in Orlando, FL. While I won’t get into any specific private conversations, I will say there was over 345 people that attended & about 70 of them were judges, many of whom I was able to speak with through the day. 

      First off, I want to thank Judge Kidd for the incredible honor of inviting me to such a special day in his life. He couldn’t have been more gracious with his time that he took out of his busy day to meet with me along with my mother who flew down to Florida before the ceremony. I was able to meet many of the law clerks he has had throughout his time as a judge, all of whom are extraordinary themselves. I spoke with one of the attorney’s who was on the vetting panel that recommended Judge Kidd to become a magistrate judge & he went on about how unanimous the recommendation was because this was the right man for the seat & he couldn’t be happier for his elevation.

      The ceremony was extraordinary. There were a couple of attorneys who worked with Judge Kidd earlier in his career. The second speaker went in depth about his family’s history dating all the way back to the 1800’s during slavery in Alabama & how proud his ancestors must be on this day. A member of the Biden White House Counsel’s office was there to read President Biden’s commission. As I was leaving outside the courthouse, he actually saw me looking at the two district court judges he was talking with, took my phone & took a picture of me & them as they were outside waiting for their Uber so that was nice of him. 

      Senior status Roy Dalton Jr. spoke eloquently while also being very funny I might add. 4th Circuit Court Judge Roger Gregory spoke about Judge Kidd’s time as his law clerk before swearing him in. Judge Kidd gave a speech before his wife & son helped him put on his judicial robe & he took the bench along with his fellow 11th Circuit Court judges, all of whom were in attendance. 

      The reception afterwards was great. Once again I won’t mention any names but I can tell everyone on here that a LOT of federal judges reads the blog… Lol

      I truly didn’t grasp how many people reads this blog until I was speaking with a couple of Biden district court judges & after about 30 seconds, one asked what do I do. When I told them I wrote an article on Judge Kidd on the Vetting Room, both of their eyes LIT UP. The judge on my left immediately said wait, are you the Dequan from the Vetting Room. The other took their cell phone out & called a third Biden district court judge & told them to immediately come to the first floor because there was somebody, they know they would want to meet. They started repeating almost word for word some of our comments (Good & bad) we have written over the years but all in good fun. One told my mother “It’s ok, I have a job for life now, although according to your son that’s not gonna be too much longer because I’m too old”. We all busted out laughing. When the third judge arrived, they said which one of you guys on the Vetting Room called me dull, because I’m not dull once I take my robe off. It was truly hilarious meeting people we have discussed in length in person but as I said it was all in good fun & they all took pictures with me in the end. 

      One judge was very disappointed there will be no new articles on the blog because they said they enjoyed reading the article (Even if not all of the comments). I was SUPER excited to meet Judge Nancy Abudu. She couldn’t have been nicer, taking pictures with my mother & me.

      It was a spectacular event from start to finish. I want to thank Harsh for selecting me to write the article on now Judge Kidd. Without that opportunity, I never would have had the opportunity to attend such an incredible event. 

      Liked by 3 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      Yes I agree (Thankfully she wasn’t one of the 70 judges in attendance Tuesday… Lol). I actually pushed back on some of the criticism about her back then, despite me not agreeing with the nomination of her to the DC Circuit. We used to have one user on the blog that really took some tough shots at her. I would always write back I agree she shouldn’t be the nominee, however my reasons are there were far more progressive possibilities for a seat with no home state senators, her age & there was a vacancy in her home state at the time. I think comments going forward should stick to the facts of the nominees & not personal shots.

      Liked by 1 person

  40. Mitch's avatar

    In something indirectly linked to Federal judges, Lisa Murkowski recently said she has considered joining the Democratic Party. The biggest obstacle seems to be the Democrats’ continued opposition to drilling for oil on Federal lands.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      That’s gonna be a hard position for Democrats to change their position on. I’m fine with Murkowski staying Republican (Even if in name only) similar to how Manchin stayed a Democrat. He voting record is probably the second best we will get out of the state of Alaska from anybody who can realistically win statewide only behind Mary Peltola.

      Like

    • Joe's avatar

      I think if Democrats ever ended up in a situation where they had the Presidency, the House, and exactly 49 senators then Murkowski may be persuaded to flip (in exchange for Energy chair and having heavy influence on legislation). Outside of that specific scenario, I don’t think it makes much sense for Democrats or for her really. Re-election will be difficult enough for her in 2028 as it is.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        But that’s my point. They have a week’s notice for a SJC hearing. Even if they do have another committee hearing, unless it’s in Saskatoon, they can duck out & go to the SJC hearing to question this & all other nominees, because it would be in close proximity to where the hearing is being held at. Even if it’s out of turn based on their seniority. You are making excuses for them. I refuse. These are lifetime appointments to one third of our government. No excises, be there & do your job.

        Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        Yes, they were informed last week. But, Iran was an attacked over the weekend without congressional approval . Apparently, some in the GOP were told and top Democrats were not.

        We need answers now! It took over a decade to get our troops out of the last conflicts which caused the loss of thousands of young Americans and trillions of dollars of debt.

        What did we gain from creating that conflict? This cannot be allowed to happen again.

        The hearing needs to be canceled and scheduled at a later time.

        In this instance voting on judges is a lessor priority.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I don’t necessarily disagree with you. But unfortunately, Democrats are not in the majority, so the hearing was not cancelled. Since these are lifetime appointments, Democrats need to walk & chew gum at the same time. So they need to figure out a way to rotate their attendance to ensure each & every one of them due their due diligence & show up to these all-important nomination hearings regardless of what else is going on. I’m not saying they need to be there for the entire hearing, just to do their part & ask questions. 

        Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        The hearing hasn’t happened yet. You don’t know if they will not show up.

        We will have to agree to disagree. Its a judgment call since you and I have never served in the Senate we are not in a position to say that they are not doing their job simply because they are doing what you want.

        You think judges are more important than anything else.

        There was a musician a number of years ago named Joey Ramone.

        The only thing he ate was pizzas.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        You are wrong. The hearing is happening right now as we speak. And that’s not what I said. I didn’t say judges are more important than anything else. I said the senators need to rotate their schedules to make sure they appear at each hearing & question the nominees.  

        Like

  42. Mitch's avatar

    The SJC is having its hearing and it’s contentious as expected. Chuck Grassley is accusing Democrats of opposition for opposition’s sake. About 30 minutes ago, he said, “Turning every nominee into a political punching bag isn’t advice and consent, it’s smear and obstruct.”

    A whistleblower claimed in a letter that Emil Bove plotted to defy Federal courts about something. Bove is calling the claims false as we type.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Unfortunately I had to work when the hearing started so I won’t be able to watch the replay until tonight. I can certainly answer the question “How much headway was had by not showing up & doing nothing at all” if you would like me to answer that. I don’t need to watch in order to answer that question.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Senators Murkowski & Collins voted against Republican nominees in the last administration. Senator Ossoff tanked a Biden nominee in committee just last year. Senators Manchin & Sinema voted against plenty of Biden nominees. Senator Kennedy voted against Trump’s first judge on the DC Circuit. Most if not ALL of those no votes don’t happen if the opposition didn’t send any senators to the SJC hearing to ask questions. So again, doing NOTHING gets you NOTHING. At least showing up & trying gives you a chance to tank a nominee.

        Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        Where we are today is much different than when the Democrat’s held the Senate.

        The GOP has 3 extra votes without Vance. If the Democrats had that then almost all of the Circuit nominees would have been confirmed even Mangi.

        Do you think Vance will have to adjust his schedule to vote on lower court judge? Of course not.

        To miss a hearing isn’t a big deal. You’re making it sound like it was a committee vote.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Well if they aren’t going to show up for the hearing, they might as well miss the committee vote too… Haaaa

        I’m just thankful the Democrat nominee for mayor of NYC didn’t listen to you. We would be stuck with a mayor-elect who has been credibly accused of sexual assault, resigned in disgrace & was terrible at picking judges when he was governor.

        Like

  44. Mitch's avatar

    @shawnee68

    That’s true in the short run, but this Mayoral election could have long term national implications.

    Among other things, the new Mayor could be the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate when Chuck Schumer retires.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        What legislation has the current President or Vice President pass before they were in their current offices they hold? Don’t worry, I’ll wait…

        The fact of the matter is AOC is one of the more popular politicians in the country. I don’t personally agree with each of her positions, but she would drive out the NYC vote in ways Schumer could only dream of, to cancel out any upstate vote she would lose.

        On a separate note, I’m watching the SJC hearing from today at work. Democrats have done a complete 360 from their almost unilateral no show from the first hearing. They are not only hammering Bove, they also are pushing back on an unusual animated & partisan Chairman Grassley’s bs. I hope this is a sign of things to come.

        Liked by 1 person

      • shawnee68's avatar

        All of votes counted for Trump go to him not Vance.

        You made much out of one time occurrence of Senator’s not attending to ask 5 minutes worth questions that probably won’t yield answers .

        What do you get out of barking at people during a hearing ? The same was done to Nancy Abudu but she got confirmed. That makes it sweeter.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        There is a HUGE difference between the first hearing & today. There a legitimate chance Bove might get 4 Republicans to vote against him. Will it happen? I can’t guarantee it. But I could guarantee it would NOT happen if Democrats repeated their no show from the first hearing.

        Do you live your life like that? You think there no difference between doing nothing versus something? You think you will lose weight sitting on your couch the same as if you went to the gym? Come on, you can’t be serious. Will every bad nominee get voted down? Of course not. But at least try. Why are you defending laziness… Lol

        Like

      • Joe's avatar

        If Schumer does retire he might try and endorse someone early (like Stabenow did with Slotkin). However, if it’s truly an open race it’s hard to see AOC not being the frontrunner. She has very high name recognition and is very popular with voters even if the state party might not like her.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Joe's avatar

        I certainly don’t expect AOC to primary Schumer. This would only be if he did retire.

        I like Dan Goldman too but…yeah he doesn’t have the same level of name recognition or charisma that AOC does. But we’re getting way too ahead of ourselves. Better to focus on 2025 and 2026.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Senator Schumer did a good job questioning Miguel Estrada at his SJC hearing (I actually went back & watched it about a year ago) but that is not what stopped his confirmation. The filibuster is what stopped it. Had that nomination been made today, according to you he would have been confirmed today since showing up wouldn’t make a difference… Lol

        Second point, you don’t have to be a lawyer to be a US senator or be on the SJC so I’m not sure what importance that has on AOC running.

        Last point, what makes you think AOC couldn’t do as good of a job questioning nominees as Schumer? Everything I have seen from her questioning witnesses at House hearings tells me she would do an even better job than Schumer would. Again, I am not saying I agree with all of AOC’s policies nor am I saying she should be the next senator, but nothing you have written sways me against her.

        Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        The last I heard of Miguel Estrada is when he said he never wanted to see Chuck Schumer again.

        It’s very rare for a non lawyer to ask the kind probing questions like Kamala Harris did at Brett Kavanaugh’s hearing. He had a look on his face like a doe caught in the headlights.

        The only person I can think of is Al Franken. He got Jeff Sessions to recuse himself which led to him getting fired. lol

        I think Joe Biden did a good job at asking probing questions of Sam Alito on Title VII. It’s a skill that is learned through training.

        All of the GOP Senators with law degrees are the toughest questioners. You can’t say that about Tillis , Grassley and what’s her name from Tennessee .

        Liked by 1 person

      • lilee2122's avatar

        Im in nys .AOC is well known in nyc and eastern part the state. But she doesn’t come mid or west parts of state .. I don’t really know much of her other then what I read…She will have to expand her base and as an individual candidate start campaigning out of her comfort zone if she runs for higher office….Schumer needs to retire not run again…He did wonderful things helping judges and getting democrat stuff done in past years but time for passing the torch where he is concerned

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Ooohhh, sounds like you are changing your tune. So showing up to work at SJC hearings DOES matter instead of not showing up & doing nothing. I’m happy to hear you finally have come around. And again, I don’t think you have to have a law degree to be a tough questioner. I bet you if I became a US senator, I would grill Trump nominees & I’ve never step foot inside of a law school. I’m confident AOC would do the same from what I have seen from her House hearings. We have plenty of senators with law degrees that don’t scare nominees, so it comes down to the individual, regardless of if they passed the Bar or not.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Very few Americans outside of this blog & the legal community probably would have that complaint. They would have a complaint once the nominees become judges & start taking away their rights since they are on the bench for life. Not showing up so try & derail the nominees from becoming judges is what would help that become a reality. I’m thankful Democrats appear to be taking my advice this past hearing.

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I will call on Bernie Sanders to retire when I stop seeing him show up for work, criss crossing the country drawing huge crowds & speaking up day after day for our rights. Until then, I don’t care if he is 103 years old, he is doing better than some a decade or more younger than him. I could have names a handful just from the SJC alone prior to this past SJC hearing when they finally remembered they have a job to do & showed up for work (Which is step one).

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        @shawnee68

        No it’s not an age thing if we are talking about a politician like Bernie Sanders, who has to run for office every 6 years. It is an age thing if we are talking about a federal judge who is on the bench for like once confirmed. There’s no hypocrisy here. We are talking about two different jobs, two different branches of government & two different tenures once in the job.

        @Mitch

        It will be tough. Not so much because we can’t find 2 other Republican senators who don’t believe Bove shouldn’t be a judge. More so because the ones who might think that might be afraid of getting on Trump’s bad side. And let’s not forget that’s assuming all Democrats show up for work which we have seen isn’t always a guarantee.

        Like

  46. Mitch's avatar

    The Democrats attacked Bove with such force, the Florida nominees emerged virtually unscathed. Ed Artau got some questions about ruling in Trump’s favor in a lawsuit while being considered for the Federal judgeship. He admitted that he made a mistake by not recusing himself.

    Liked by 1 person

  47. Mitch's avatar

    Big day at the Supreme Court. Four major rulings, all of them decided by 6 to 3, falling on predicable lines.

    The biggest one is Trump vs. CASA, limiting lower court injunctions on Birthright Citizenship. The question on Birthright Citizenship itself will be decided later. This one drew some nasty sniping between some of the justices.

    In Paxton vs. Free Speech Coalition, the court ruled that the state of Texas could use age verification technology on porn sites, stating that it doesn’t infringe on adults.

    In Mahmoud vs. Taylor, the court ruled that parents could opt their children out of reading assigned books that promote LGBTQ themes.

    In Kennedy vs. Braidwood, the court ruled that the Preventative Services Task Force does not violate Obamacare.

    Liked by 2 people

  50. tsb1991's avatar

    Just realized that the SCOTUS term ended Thursday but no announcement of any SCOTUS justices retiring, right? With Trump and a Republican Senate through at least 2026, I figured at minimum we’d be getting Alito and Thomas retirements this year and next year which would solidify the 6-3 majority on SCOTUS. Still think they’re fine given Republicans probably hold the Senate next year but if Democrats somehow win the Senate in 2026 that means one SCOTUS retirement between now and 2027 in all likelihood. I thought I remember hearing one rumor that Thomas wants to outlive Biden and still be on SCOTUS when Biden goes as a last spite to Biden for his confirmation hearings. Chance this turns into a RBG problem for Republicans where his stubbornness costs Republicans a SCOTUS seat down the line?On the Tillis retirement, I still have subterranean expectations for him on judges since that’s the whole reason for living for Republican Senators. While he was one of the most vulnerable Senate Republicans up for re-election next year, he may have also been at risk in a primary since it sounds like a lot of Trump die-hards turned on him for sinking Ed Martin’s nomination to the DDC Attorney (his opposition means he couldn’t get out of a 12R-10D SJC since the majority vote to discharge deadlocked nominees typically only applies in a 50-50 Senate when committees are split evenly). Also, the same goes for if he decides to oppose any judges, a no vote on the SJC is far more important than a floor vote, since that outright kills the nomination.North Carolina’s kind of an interesting state next year because while Democrats haven’t won statewide federal races since 2008 (Obama and Hagan), there’s been some luck involved since North Carolina hasn’t really had Senate races since 2008 during really bad Republican years (the red waves of 2010 and 2014, the Biden midterm in 2022, Trump winning in 2016 and 2020, while no Senate races in 2012 or 2018). This will be the first Senate race in North Carolina during a Republican President’s midterm since 2002, so if Trump continues to remain unpopular that might get a Democrat (Roy Cooper?) over the finish line. Same thing for Maine, Collins last was up in a Republican President’s midterm in 2002 (and 2002 was a far less polarized/nationalized environment for Senate races), and will have to try to win re-election when Trump is likely to be highly unpopular in Maine (while she did win in 2020, she did have the cover of Biden voters voting for her to be a check on Biden, she won’t have that protection this time since it’ll be a referendum on the Republican-controlled federal government), and she may lose whatever crossover support she has remaining that could help her win.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a reply to lilee2122 Cancel reply