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.

1,277 Comments

    • Dequan's avatar

      Happy 4th all. I highly doubt Padilla & Schiff will be supporting any judicial nominees this term. Padilla was hog tied by the administration & Schiff seems to have taken Al Franken’s role as best griller of nominees in the SJC from what I saw in the second hearing. If you asked me today to bet which state that will have multiple district court vacancies over the next 4 years won’t have any judges confirmed (Similar to New Jersey & Washington state in Trump’s first term), I would bet on California. 

      Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      As we knew he was. I’m having a hard time thinking of somebody more deserving of being rejected of a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary in my life. 

      If Bove isn’t enough to get four Republicans to stand up & vote no, I don’t want to hear a word next time there is a Democrat president & senate majority. Dale Ho, Netburn & Mangi types should be the starting point for Democrat presidential judicial nominees going forward if Bove is confirmed.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Are we sure Thune wouldn’t still bring Bove up for a floor vote if hr isn’t voted out of committee but he feels he can find 50 floor votes? I don’t feel the least bit confident in that. Also remember it might not even take 50 floor votes if there is a prolonged Democrat absence in the next year & a half. I’m thinking it may take at least five Republicans to say they won’t vote for him to definitely kill his nomination. 

        Like

      • Ryan J's avatar

        Do the current SJC rules allow for a discharge due to a tie? The GOP has a 12-10 majority, so Tillis outright voting “no” would make it 11-11. But even if they can’t, I could see Tillis being soft and voting “pass” in committee with the condition that he will vote no on the floor.

        At the time of the Thomas nomination, opposing senators would vote to send to the full Senate with an unfavorable recommendation. Robert Bork was sent to the full Senate with an unfavorable recommendation, and Thomas was sent with no recommendation (as 7 senators wanted to advance favorably, 6 wanted to advance unfavorably, and only 1 wanted to outright reject)

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Mitch's avatar

    Now I fully expect Thom Tillis to oppose Bove’s nomination. That brings Democrats up to 50 “no” votes.

    Look for Joshua Dunlap to get cross party support. Susan Collins strongly supports him and any path to stopping a Trump nominee starts with Collins.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. shawnee68's avatar

    I forgot about Bork but that explains why Thomas was reported to the floor.

    Are there any instances where a lower court judge who was sent to the floor without a favorable committee vote?

    At first I was thinking about Frederica Massiah Jackson but I think she had a favorable committee vote.

    The GOP had a luncheon before her vote and John Ashcroft got all of them to oppose her.

    That’s the only person I can think of who came close but that situation was different .

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Just catching up on all the news today. I took a day trip to DC to meet Harsh in person for the first time. It was fantastic to meet the creator of this blog in person & he is doing great in life.

      On to the news for today. Bove is an absolute disaster. A third term. I’m actually surprised he’s this bad publicly.

      State Representative William Mercer was born in 1964. This is absolutely the best possible pick for a red state. Democrats should agree to a voice vote to expedite him getting the bench. 

      As for Bork, it’s always hard to play the what if game. There’s no guarantee he wouldn’t have been much worse than Kennedy then retired under GW Bush. The real problem is Marshall not holding on for another year, Democrats confirming Thomas & of course RBG not retiring before 2015. 

      Like

  13. Lillie's avatar

    I fail to see how Bork being confirmed would’ve been a good thing? Without Kennedy there’s presumably no 5-4 in prochoice decision in Casey, no Romer or Lawrence V Texas that was pro lgbt, probably no decision in Roper V Simmons so we’d have death penalty for juviniles.

    Kennedy was far from perfect but he forestalled at least some craziness while cosigning much more.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      It would have allowed liberals to control SCOTUS from 2012 to 2020, in which they would hopefully make as many liberal rulings as possible (such as re-affirming Roe v. Wade, not sure if they could stuff Lawrence v. Texas, Obergefell, & Bostock in 8 years, probably some cases limiting the death penalty). Plus no Kavanaugh would mean that conservatives would need to win over Roberts AND Barrett instead of Roberts OR Barrett in order to destroy whatever the liberal majority would have decided in those 8 years.

      Liked by 1 person

  14. Mitch's avatar

    @Dequan and @Lillie

    The defeat of Robert Bork was a great victory for progressives in the short term. The attacks on him and John Tower for Secretary of Defense were unusually personal. After Clarence Thomas was accused of harassment, Republicans were seething and decided that payback was the only option,

    Do you remember what happened to Anita Hill, Lani Guinar, and Goodwin Liu? And of course there’s Merrick Garland. It may have been worth it, but it came at a cost.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. 39wimpyclues's avatar

    Senate to soon confirm first judge of Trump 2.0 – Live Updates – POLITICO

    And just like that, the 6th Circuit’s rightward shift is cemented. If only the Dems didn’t screw up and make some bs judicial deal. But just wondering, why didn’t Judge Jane B. Stranch rescind her senior status unlike other judges? If anyone knows why, I’d be glad to know since it’ll cement a 10-6 conservative majority in the 6th Circuit.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Zack's avatar

    As I’ve said before, not picking up seats in NC/WI in 2020/2022 came back to bite us.
    Once Manchin/Sinema decided to start playing hardball at the end, that was that for getting any more circuit court nominees confirmed.
    It stinks that the flip we got on the 6th Circuit is going to be undone as well as the gains on the 3rd Circuit but again, elections have consequences and our side continues to show we have too many voters who simply don’t care about the judicial branch.
    The inbalance of the Senate as time goes on is only going to make it worse.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      No, I would say perhaps if Chuck Schumer kept the senate in session more than one vote on Monday 5pm to Thursday 3pm, the seat would have gotten filled just fine with Karla Campbell. Or if he would have held votes on the most controversial nominees when Republicans were down (At least) two Republican votes. Remember I was the one screaming there isn’t enough time but just basic math could have gotten the seat filled. Then all you would have had left after the election would have been Mangi, Park & the district court nominees.

      Like

  18. Mike's avatar

    Whitney Hermandorfer is going to be confirmed today. Not a peep out of judge Stranch so either she likes her replacement or all this talk about placating Judges was pointless and they’re all bark.

    Only 2 judges have rescinded their retirement announcements since Nov.

    I’m grateful so many judges were confirmed but leave it to Dems to just give up on critical judicial vacancies because they didn’t want to even bluff about working through the holidays for the last time they’ll be in power in at least 4 years.

    Liked by 1 person

    • shawnee68's avatar

      They didn’t have the votes it’s that simple. I think it’s time to move on.

      I can’t think of time when all judicial vacancies were filled.

      The dems only had 51 senators including Manchin and Sinema.

      That’s not enough to confirm everybody . That never happens anyway.

      It’s not the end of the world folks.

      Like

  19. Zack's avatar

    @ Mike,

    When Manchin & Sinema decided to start playing hardball on nominees, holding votes through the holidays etc. wasn’t going to change a darn thing.

    That is where losing winnable races in Wisconsin/North Carolina came back to bite us, as did some (IMO) Democratic senators not wanting votes on certain nominees done until after the election, which was dumb.

    If you’re worried voting for judges most people haven’t heard of is going to hurt your race, you’re already in trouble

    As for Judge Stranch, we don’t know what’s going on with her behind the scenes.

    If nothing else, what happened to her and a couple of other seats is where a mistake was made in appointing people in their late 50’s etc. as nominees.
    Happened with far too many of Obama’s nominees for my liking.

    Liked by 1 person

    • shawnee68's avatar

      You can bet these judges that no one has heard of will be known in elections especially in red states.

      It doesn’t make sense to put your election prospects at risk for a judicial nominee in a different state that you don’t know.

      I think Tester did a great job voting on all nominees and he did not get any credit.

      Like

  20. Zack's avatar

    And the flip we got on the 6th Circuit has just been negated with Whitney Hermandorfer being confirmed and at just 38, she will be there for a long time.
    Elections have consequences folks and for those complaining, we simply didn’t have enough votes for a couple of nominees at the end.
    Sucks but it is what it is.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Today is yet another example of what I have been talking about. Hermandorfer was confirmed 46-42. Had all 47 Democrats showed up to work & voted no, we could have at least delayed her confirmation. And on top of it the senate had a second vote after hers. It’s infuriating to think at how many more confirmations Democrats could have had if they simply held two votes on Mondays. At the very least the Superior Court of DC judges all could have been confirmed. 

      Like

  21. Rick's avatar

    Zack said “If you’re worried voting for judges most people haven’t heard of is going to hurt your race, you’re already in trouble”

    I agree. I just can’t imagine any voters in Ohio or Pennsylvania last election saying, yeah I’ll only vote for Brown and Casey if they vote NO on that 4th & 6th circuit judicial nominee etc. If people were upset that Brown and Casey voted for Nicole Berner and Rachel Bloomekatz, they were probably never going to vote for the above mentioned senators anyway. They were already pissed about something else.

    I think the only way a judicial nominee could truly sway a voter is if there was a SCOTUS nominee whose confirmation would change the ideological balance of that court.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. 39wimpyclues's avatar

    Senate confirms Tennessee attorney as Trump’s first judicial nominee of second term | WPLN News

    And just like that, the conservative wing of the 6th Circuit has returned to its 10-6 majority and arguably got more right-wing. Now, let’s just hope none of the Bush judges retire, die, or take senior status while Trump’s in office.

    Now, let’s wait if Emil Bove gets confirmed because if so, we’re gonna see a lot of more far-right hackery in the next few years.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Mike's avatar

    “The Dems didn’t have the votes.”

    Why are people acting this like those nominations just fell out of the sky and senate Dems were out of the loop?

    Judge Stranch announced she was going senior status Jan 29, 2024. Bidens team couldn’t find a nominee that would get 50 votes with 10 months of runway?

    And don’t get me started on Judge Greenaway Jr. who retired JUNE 2023.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. shawnee68's avatar

    You talk like you are a former president who has experience with judicial nominations.

    The Biden team doesn’t know how all senators in the dem caucus will respond to a specific nominee.

    They can’t interview nominees for a vacancy hasn’t happened. Nor did they have advanced notice.

    It can’t be easier when both senators of Tennessee will not provide any useful assistance .

    If the people who are complaining would invest more time in elections here than on issues with the Palestinians we wouldn’t be where we are.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Mitch's avatar

    I’m wondering how the Delaware vacancy for the Third Circuit is going? They must at least be going through the motions of negotiating.

    @Ethan, you excel at finding potential nominees. Who do you think are in the running?

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Zack's avatar

    What happened with Joseph Greenway’s seat IS where the ball was dropped but Biden & company choose to cling to a nominee they KNEW would never have the votes to get confirmed.
    That’s on them.
    As for the others, Manchin made clear in a recent interview that at some point in 2024, he and Sinema decided they were going to start playing hardball on some nominees cuz bipartinship and that if Democrats tried to do votes without Republicans there, they would vote them down.
    Again, we can talk about holding votes on this day or that but when you don’t have the numbers, not much of a point.
    I know some folks think a Senator Bernie Sanders/AOC etc. would have magically gotten different results but IMO, that’s wishful thinking.
    As Shawnee said, a lot of folks on the far left have made clear that the judicial branch isn’t something they vote for.
    Why do they act shocked when the Democratic senate acts the same way?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      First thing I see is she is the Sr. Counsel to the White House Counsel’s Office. That’s like when Dick Cheney was in charge of helping GW Bush pick a VP & he got picked. And the second thing I see is Federalist Society ties… The 3rd will be lost for a generation…smh

      Like

      • Zack's avatar

        @Dequan, Mangi was a self inflicted wound.
        I get not wanting to give into the smears on him but it became clear at one point he wasn’t going to get confirmed and he should have been withdrawn and someone else nominated in his place.
        That failure I won’t excuse.
        As for Kent Jordan, the timing of his retirement made it so I don’t think someone could have been confirmed.
        I won’t rip my hair out over that like I will with the flip we’ll see with Emil Bove (who is getting confirmed)

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Yea, I definitely agree Mangi ended up being a self-inflicted wound. I still say had Schumer should had put him up for a vote the following week after his SJC hearing & if Manchin, Sinema & both Nevada senators (And whoever else) made it clear they weren’t going to support him after the election, they should have went with any of the other handful of nominees that were already vetted. 

        I have heard people say Jordan setting his date for January 15th forced Biden’s hands, but I don’t believe that. Why would he not just wait until after the election to see who would win before announcing he was going to retire if that was the case. Plus Biden signed off on Jordan when blue slips were still in effect & Biden was a senator so I don’t buy Jordan would have rescinded had Biden nominated somebody. Plus if Biden would have nominated somebody around March, that would have been enough time to confirm the nominee before the election recess. 

        Like

  30. Rick's avatar

    Zack said “and that if Democrats tried to do votes without Republicans there, they would vote them down.”

    See, that’s the difference in the parties. If Republicans don’t feel like showing up for votes for whatever reason when Democrats control the senate. Holy Joe Manchin and his partner in crime Krysten would vote NO for no sensible reason other than to stick it to their party.

    While Collins and Murkowski may vote NO on a nominee once in a while when their party controls the chamber, there is a less than zero % chance that they will vote NO on nominees simply because Democrats don’t show up to vote. And any GOP senator would simply laugh their ass off if a Democratic senator came to them and said please vote NO on this or that nominee if some of our members don’t show up to vote

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Dequan's avatar

    SJC vote recap…

    Grassley started off defending Bove. He then pivoted to the Biden crime family, then started going off on various individual including AOC, Senator Wyden, Judge Brian Murphy, & more. Durbin then started with the Epstein files & how Bove could have been a part of the decision making. Then Blackburn started accusing Democrats of only caring about Epstein now followed by Tillis explaining his yes vote for Bove. Booker started going through the background of the nomination. He’s saying he & Senator Kim were initially working with the administration to fill this vacancy but Trump thrust Bove on them. Booker asked for a roll call vote on bringing the whistle blower to the SJC next week to hear from him personally. Grassley denied the vote. Whitehouse then started speaking. Then things got UGLY. Hirono tried to speak but Grassley cut her off & said it’s 1030 so time to vote. Booker interjected & said he wanted to make a point of order to allow his colleague to speak. Grassley didn’t acknowledge & the clerk begin to call the roll. This lead to Booker speaking over the clerk as she called the roll. Democrats begin to start walking out with Hirono shouting “This is a Kangaroo Court” as she walked out. Booker continued talking until he finally left too. All nominees were reported to the floor.

    Like

  38. Zack's avatar

    @Dequan, and this is why I didn’t flip out when some Senators didn’t show up for these hearings.
    Republicans have 53 senators right now, there is NEVER going to be four no votes to sink a nominee and Democrats engaging in pointless kabuki theater won’t change that.
    As for this seat, yea there is no sugercoating this one, this is the biggest misstep for a Circuit court seat since the late Terence T. Evans’s seat on the 7th Circuit was left open for FOUR years because of the stupid blue slip rule for circuit court seats that you knew Republicans would trash once they got the chance.
    I wanted Mangi to be confirmed too but at some point, it was clear the votes weren’t there yet Biden and whomever was doing judicial nominations still clung to a nominee that had no chance, even if his vote had been brought up a week after his hearing (which never happened.)
    Instead they choose to ignore reality and now someone in the mold of Samuel Alito will be taking the seat he once held, what a stupid, unenforced error.
    As for Tillis voting yes, no surprise.
    He may hate Trump but as with McConnell, will happily vote for right wing judges that will push Republican goals in the future.
    You aren’t going to be seeing him or anyone else stop any nominees like you did with Manchin/Sinema etc.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Sad situation all around. I still would rather Democrats show up & fight even in a losing effort, however I agree with everything else you said. The reason Democrats need to show up & fight is not for today, but for tomorrow when they are back in the majority. They need to be able to remind Republican’s they warned them this day would come next time they are in the majority so showing up & fighting paths toe road to that destination.

      A few years back I saw an interview where somebody was talking about in the 70’s after the Roe v Wade decision, they remembered one woman on a street corner holing up signs every weekend saying something to the effect of how abortion is wrong. She would see the same woman every weekend with a sign even if it was cold or raining. At first it was just her, then as years went by, she was joined by a few others & eventually crowds. Now the law has been overturned & her protest is now the law of the land. Democrats need to be that woman standing alone on the street corner in the 70’s NOW, so one day they will be joined by a crowd LATER.I am 1000% more proud of senate Democrats today in a losing battle than the first SJC hearing this year when they virtually didn’t even show up. 

      Like

    • Ryan J's avatar

      They always have just enough votes to pass their agenda. I won’t be surprised if EXACTLY three GOP senators vote no on Bove, and Vance breaks the tie.

      -Collins, Murkowski, & Turtle (McConnell) voted against Hegseth
      – Collins, Paul, & Tillis voted against the Big Ugly Bill
      – Collins, Murkowski, & Turtle voted against starting debate on defunding NPR/PBS (though Turtle voted in favor of the actual measure)

      This all seems very calculated, like the GOP senators are taking turns voting against their party in order to appear “independent”. Had Bob Casey won re-election, MAYBE the Senate would have rejected Hegseth or failed to pass the Big Ugly Bill, but more likely one of the three GOP defectors would have fallen in line.

      Liked by 1 person

  40. Zack's avatar

    @Dequan, that woman on the street corner and those who joined her also did something else, they showed up at the ballot box and didn’t have to be “inspired” to do so with what we saw today.
    Our side still has too many folks that don’t get the ballot box is what matters more then anything else and if someone doesn’t meet your purity test, too bad, you STILL show up.
    Hillary tried to warn people about SCOTUS and she was ignored because Goldman Sachs, Bernie had the nomination stolen blah blah and in 2024, too many people on team blue decided Gaza mattered more then anything else.
    Our side simply doesn’t care enough about the courts the way Republicans do and until that changes, pointless political theater doesn’t matter to me.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Zack

      Oh yea, I definitely agree with you on that. The only way this works is if people vote in EVERY election. Currently team blue has too many voters who are only motivated when things are broken. That’s why we got Clinton to clen up GHW Bush mess, Obama to clean up GW Bush mess & Biden to clean up Trump’s mess. We need them to realize it’s easier to not let somebody get elected that will create the mess in the first place. I totally agree with you there. I just think showing up the way Democrats did today creates news & unfortunately too many voters (Not talking about people like you or me) need every bit of motivation they can get to make it to the polls. 

      Ryan J

      Yup, you got it buddy. I wouldn’t be surprised one bit if it wasn’t a coordinated effort to see which three votes no on a particular item. Now depending on how long senator Smith is out, they can add a fourth to that total for the near future. Oh how much things would be different if we could be waiting on senators Cunningham, Barnes & Casey to vote… Sigh 

      Liked by 1 person

      • lilee2122's avatar

        Lets take stock of the current status of the 3 coequal parts of our government……In executive we have a person convicted of 34 felonies part of whose job is to nominate judges….. Legislative branch both parts is of the executives own party. Shame on them that sugar coat our constitution for their own greedy benefit or fear of the executive…Some voters who voted for this president Im thinking in. PA for ex.were paid by the worlds richest person to vote a certain way. All out in the open, The Citizen United decision working at its best . THE excutive branch is ignoring many court orders , having ICE wearing masks and kidnapping law abiding been in the US many years immigrants and recently US citizens… wormy food and little to no medical care and of course who cares where in the world they end up…..Scotus and the GOP have green lighted this new era of lawlessness….. Those in power are not obeying our constitution..I used to vote democrat and GOP , a middle of the roader… It’s a grave time in our country .. The judicial nominees are ideological nominees lacking judicial temperment and experience…Dems need to suck it up , put aside their many differences and find candidates who represent something in all of the Dem party not just one of the many segments. IMO the US is just not ready for a female president period…now someone may be mad at this but is my view.. I consider Biden, Obama and Clinton able to pull all factions of the Dem party together… The Democrats have to show up in the senate. At the voting booths and with their elected officials…dont get discouraged , plan and prepare ., The GOP did with project 2025 unfortunately…

        Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      Haaaaaaaa

      Remember right here on this very blog last year when so many people kept telling me “Calm down”, “Don’t worry” & “There’s enough” time. All I kept saying is once the GOP is back in charge, you will see how a majority Party should act. Sad to see but a part of me wants them to cancel the August recess & end blue slips for district court seats while they are at it. Democrats are never gonna do it first so let’s just let them do it first to get it out of the way. Hopefully by 2029 this country will be so screwed up, people will not make the same mistake they just did this past November for a while & Democrats will benefit over the long run. 

      Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        At the end of the day it boiled down to not having the votes.

        The judiciary will not save us if people who should vote for Democrats stay at home.

        I am going to compare GOP voters to Democrats . They always vote for their candidate whether they like them or not. They don’t have to be “inspired.”

        It would be worse now if Democrats did away with blue slips like some people wanted.

        The simple fix is people showing up to the polls and voting Democrats. That of course doesn’t include 3rd party candidates.

        To protest ICE agents after sitting out an election is nonsensical !

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I still disagree with the opinion that had Democrats gotten rid of blue slips, things would be worse now. There wouldn’t be 8 vacancies in Texas, 4 vacancies in Missouri, 5 vacancies in Florida & so on had Democrats had gotten rid of them (Along with other suggestions I had like the Trump aforementioned working the summer recess suggestion). And yea Republican voters how up no matter what. I’m sorry but Democrat voters aren’t in a cult like some of their voters are. We won’t just vote for anybody. We need to be inspired. Refusing to hold more than one vote on Mondays, work weeks, Summer’s, cutting a “deal” in your last month of power that gives up (At that time) five circuit court seats & not showing up for the first SJC hearing of Trump 2.0 isn’t very inspiring. Now since that SJC hearing the Democrats have seem to have found their footing. Let’s see more of that & less of the do nothing & take it act that some on this blog have advocated they do. That won’t inspire anybody. 

        Like

  45. Mitch's avatar

    Meanwhile back in Delaware, Senators Chris Coons and Lisa Rochester Blunt have expressed skepticism about the Jennifer Mascott nomination, pointing out they’ve never met her and questioning her ties to Delaware.

    They have not actually come out against her nomination yet. Also, they haven’t accused her of being an ideologue. Here is their joint statement:

    https://www.coons.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senators-coons-blunt-rochester-statement-on-third-circuit-judicial-nominee

    Liked by 1 person

  46. Zack's avatar

    @Dequan,

    The fact that protecting the civil rights of millions via the courts isn’t “inspiring” enough for our side to vote for the Democratic candidates for President/Senate etc. is why Republicans now have a lock on SCOTUS and most of the lower courts that will undo any and all progressive legislation and block news ones from happening.

    Because they care about the long game and not some garbage about how their vote has to be earned or we won’t vote for anyone who doesn’t fit the mold of Bernie/AOC etc.

    If nothing else, stuff like comes across as tone deaf to folks like me who are under attack from this SCOTUS along with so many others and is a reason many of us, even if we don’t like Schumer or others at times find many folks in progressive circles to be turn offs.

    I don’t need a rally or a pointless show vote where you don’t have the votes to care about the greater good, too bad so many “progressives” do.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Dequan's avatar

      Unfortunately people like you & me don’t need an inspiration to vote but as the old saying goes “You have to play with the hand you are dealt”. You know why Obama got so many people out to vote for him in 2008? That’s because he inspired a LOT of people to vote for him that normally don’t vote. 

      I remember one of my good friends at the time who is about 15 years older than me & never spoke about politics, calling & texting me to make sure I voted for Obama. She was even trying to get some of her friends & family back in her home in Puerto Rico to list their home address as her address here in South Florida so they could vote too because she wanted to make she Obama won Florida. Guess what… That same friend profile picture on Facebook right now is her wearing a Trump & Vance “2024” hat. 

      I’m sorry but I just completely disagree with you that Democrats don’t need to pull stunts or pretend they are fighting even in a losing effort if that means it won’t inspire people like my friend I mentioned to vote for them. 

      Here’s the reality… People like you & me would have voted for just about any Democrat in 2008 (I personally only would not have voted for Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel). But you know what, I’m highly convinced my friend I mentioned above wouldn’t have. She probably would have kept on not voting had Obama not inspired her to vote. 

      Look, by no means am I saying you are wrong if your question is how things SHOULD be. I am saying you are wrong when it comes to my question which is how things ARE. So if Corey Booker has to filibuster a bill for 24 hours only for it to pass as soon as he sits down or Democrats have to walk out of a SJC hearing in protest of a horrible judicial nominee for me to get videos of that walk out forward to me on Instagram by friends who are not that political over the next few days then guess what, so be it. If that’s what it takes to get people inspired when people like you & me don’t need inspiration then I’m all for it. I truly hope I live to see the day where that’s not needed but until it is, I want Democrats to keep the stunts up. We need to start putting some wins on the board. Sadly people like you, me & most of the people on this blog aren’t enough to get the job done. We need to get people like my friend who was hunting me down in 2008 to vote for Obama & now has a Trump & Vance hat on in her Facebook profile picture to come around. I’m afraid your way of thinking just ain’t gonna do it despite it should be enough in a perfect world. 

      Like

  47. Zack's avatar

    @Dequan,

    Your friend isn’t going to come back because of pointless kabuki theater or a rally or because Chuck Schumer held a vote that ultimately failed.

    Wins on the board happen when you show up to vote and keep on showing up every two years instead of staying home or voting third party.

    Liked by 1 person

  48. 39wimpyclues's avatar

    So with the 6th Circuit Court returning to its 10-6 conservative majority (arguably more right-wing with Hermandorfer’s appointment), is there chance of it becoming more liberal in the coming years?

    Humor with me cause I’m curious, but are the Bush judges here more moderate and less likely to take senior status under Trump’s term? In fact, out of the 10 conservative judges in the court, who are the more moderate ones compared to their colleagues?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Lillie's avatar

      I should know this more, because I live in Ohio. but honestly I don’t really know. It’s not cartoonishly right wing–at least it kinda stays under the radar more than the 5th. Sutton the chief judge is a hardcore Bush conservative but he’s also not a complete hack either–has occasionally voted to uphold ACA, for example. But its no moderate cakewalk, either. If that makes sense.

      I’d be curious for a circuit by circuit analysis since most of the faces have changed since 2022 when they were last written here.

      I could also obviously be completely wrong, but that’s the vibe I get.

      Liked by 1 person

  50. Zack's avatar

    Emil Bove will be confirmed to the 3rd Circuit tomorrow.
    Between many Clinton/Obama judges taking senior status under Trump and dropping the ball on Mangi’s nomination, what a self inflicted wound on the 3rd Circuit.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      This one hurts. It hurts really bad. Not only did we not get an A+ judge in Mangi, but now we got perhaps the worst judicial nominee I have ever seen in my lifetime in his place. Democrats really need some fresh blood in leadership next time they are in the majority & have the presidency. If Republicans can confirm Bove, there really isn’t too many people they shouldn’t be willing to confirm next time around. 

      Like

      • Mike's avatar

        It’s basically just like we said over the last 3 years I was around here, Dems are scared of what to do when they have power and Reps like to show off what they’ll do when they have it.

        What Biden nominee comes anywhere near the controversy Emil has? Andre Mathis?

        And look at the GOP senators, ZERO fear of a negative ad saying they voted for an extremist judge BS. They know what Dems never will, nobody cares and if they do they were always voting Republican.

        It’s gonna be an awful 3.5 years but thanks to so few vacancies I’m hopeful Dems can turn this around if they can win the WH/Senate in 2028.

        Liked by 3 people

Leave a reply to Zack Cancel reply