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.

1,226 Comments

  1. Mike S.'s avatar

    I was actually looking at the current active federal judges in Alabama, most of whom were confirmed during the first 2-3 years of Trump’s first term. Many were confirmed with overwhelming support, so my guess if they were more mainstream conservative Republicans.

    Having Doug Jones in office for those three years really helped out tremendously in terms of keeping far right hacks off the courts. If I remember correctly, he refused to return a blue slip for LaCour.

    As a side note, its amazing to me that Republicans drew the line with Roy Moore for his involvement with underage girls, but they look the other way with Trump/Epstein. The times sure have changed…

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I actually disagree Republicans drew the line with Roy Moore. Most national Republicans either said he was still better than electing a Democrat or remained silent. Almost none said it’s better to elect the guy who prosecuted the Klan even though he had a D next to his name.

      And he got 49% of the vote. It’s pretty sad that if you are a child predator, sexual assaultor or possible rapist, you still can come within 1% of being a senator, sit on the US Supreme Court or even become president if you have a R next to your name. Meanwhile if you are a the best Democrat Senator we have & make a stupid joke 30 years ago, Senator Gillibrand runs you out the senate. Sad I tell ya

      Like

  6. Dequan's avatar

    This is a quote from Trump from a Politico article from August 12th…

    The president said he plans to send up several judge nominees for D.C.’s Superior Court, which require Senate confirmation. “We have about 10 open spots, and we could probably create some more,”

    I’m still angry Schumer couldn’t at least get votes on all pending Superior Court of DC nominees out of that stupid “deal” last November.

    Like

  7. humanfault's avatar

    Horrifying thought everyone, but I was thinking about the likelihood of either Thomas or Alito retiring under a Republican Senate during the remainder of Trump’s term and came to the realization that Emil Bove will likely be a top contender.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Zack's avatar

    @Lillie,
    Bumatay being gay will ensure he will never be the high court nominee, religious conservatives won’t stand for it.
    As for Rebecca Taibleson, she’s a hack but it was to be expected.
    At least this one won’t be a flip unlike the other circuit confirmations we’ve seen so far.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mike S.'s avatar

      Is it accurate to say the Scudder and St. Eve are more of the moderate-conservative cut? Easterbook always seemed to me to be more a classic Reagan conservative, and less of a hack…

      Curious to find out more about this latest nominee to the 7th. At least she was a recommended candidate by the bi-partisan screening committee. That gives me some hope.

      As for the DC Superior Court, it didn’t entirely make sense why they gave up on those nominees. If there were just too many to confirm, at least prioritize the two nominees to the DC Court of Appeals (which is effectively the Supreme Court level for DC). I do believe that all nominations must be screened prior by a committee, if I remember correctly, so maybe that is why the Dems held off, thinking the next batch under Trump might not be all terrible if he was somewhat limited as to who he could nominate. For example, Judge John Howard, nominated and confirmed under Trump to the DC Court of Appeals, is a Democrat I believe.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        My problem is what if Trump says screw the rule all nominees must be screened prior by a committee & just nominated all right wing hacks. I’m not really confident a second term Trump wouldn’t do that. I’m even less confident if he did, this Republican senate wouldn’t confirm them.

        You’re spot on about the two DC Court of appeals nominees. Including one in her 40’s who could have been on the short list for elevation to the district or circuit court under the next Democrat president with years experience on the lower bench. 

        I get mad eventually time I think about how bad that “deal” was. It made the Georgia deal under Obama that got nominees blue slips for six vacancies with only two of them being certified Democrats. And one of those two Democrats were so bad, Democrats stopped him from getting confirmed & he eventually became chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court, nominated by a Republican… When did Democrats get so bad at the judiciary… Sigh 

        Like

  11. Mike's avatar

    Trump DC district judge Trevor N. McFadden equates Israeli flag with Jewish identity in new ruling.

    So now if you burn an Israeli flag, a Saudi flag and American flag, you can be sued for antisemitic discrimination.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. 39wimpyclues's avatar

    In some good news from the 5th Circuit, Bush appointees, Judges Southwick and Haynes, find themselves on the side of progressive rulings.

    Judge Southwick writes for a 2-1 majority halting West Texas A&M University’s drag ban. James Ho dissents in his usual far-right manner.

    Meanwhile, Judge Haynes is part of a unanimous three-panel rejecting Louisiana’s proposal to gut the voting rights act, thus protecting black voters.

    I hope they rule in favor of progressive rulings from now on though I do know this could be a case of a broken clock being right twice. Let’s just hope they don’t take senior status or retire until the Dems retake the Senate and Presidency.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. 39wimpyclues's avatar

    Ok it’s been days and my comment’s still under moderation. I’mma just share this without the Twitter links (since I think that’s holding it up) because this is such an interesting turn of events if true.

    Anyhow, I’ll preface this by saying I don’t know how reliable this is, but I saw a bunch of right-wing Twitter accounts get mad over Rebecca Taibleson’s possible appointment

    Because get this…

    There are online records of her husband and other family members donating to Dem candidates (most fascinatingly, Biden 2020)

    And I saw another account who’s closely associated with Rebecca Bradley (yes that Rebecca Bradley of the SCOWIS) claim that she asked around Wisconsin’s conservative circles for Taibleson’s credentials. And their response was confusion and indifference because “they don’t think she’s a conservative.”

    Again, don’t know how reliable and truthful this is but if somehow Trump and Ron Johnson are tricked into confirming Wisconsin’s very own David Souter then I wouldn’t mind the 7th Circuit shifting a little left.

    I know Rebecca Taibleson is probably not a secret leftist seeing as she vouched for Kavanaugh and clerked for Scalia. But if she’s at least a moderate, then I welcome her becoming Judge Diane Sykes’s successor.

    Liked by 2 people

      • Dequan's avatar

        I remember thinking Diane Wood would be chosen. She really should have been. We all know a Latina would be the first pick. I thought Kim Warlaw was going to be the pick but Sotomayor had been phenomenal. I truly thought Wood was going to be the second pick. I think she was on the list of nominees the GOP threatened to filibuster. I think the majority was down to 59 senators at that point so Obama probably didn’t want to risk unified opposition. 

        Kagan was close to Biden & it was also rumored even Scalia suggested Obama nominate her. At the end of the day I probably still would have gone with Wood, particularly with both Obama & Justice Steven’s being from Chicago. But after Obamacare, he just didn’t want a fight. 

        Like

    • Mike S.'s avatar

      Thank you for posting, I have been following this story. It is a sad ending for her distinguished career. At this point, she seems intent on staying on the court until death. I hope she makes it to the end of Trump’s term, at which point she will be 101. I believe she is the oldest serving judge ever to remain in active service.

      Liked by 1 person

    • humanfault's avatar

      I know there’s a lot of complexities around her suspension and all that, but I truly don’t see how the suspension isn’t clearly unconstitutional. Even if all the allegations are true about her the Constitution is pretty clear that they can only face removal or anything of that sort via legislative intervention a-la impeachment/removal. I really do feel like if she were to take her case to the Supreme Court she’d likely end up winning unless I’m missing something obvious.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        The problem is the down side is worse than the upside is better. Democrats work with Republican presidents to get conservative judges in blue states like Illinois & New York. Republicans NEVER work with a Democrat president to get liberal judges in red states. I could argue the most liberal red state district court judge Biden got in a red state was maybe David Pappillon. Trump got much much more conservative judges in blue states in his first term. So the rules as they are favor Republican too heavily. So mine as well scrap blue slips so at least Democrats can get some Dale Ho’s in red states. 

        Like

  23. 39wimpyclues's avatar

    Mississippi Supreme Court election map dilutes Black voters’ power, judge rules | Reuters

    I’m glad Judge Sharion Aycock blocked the use of this discriminatory map.

    Assuming the ruling doesn’t get challenged and Mississippi enacts a better Supreme Court map, what would the partisan composition look like? Right now, it’s a lopsided 8-1 conservative supermajority ever since the super right-wing Jenifer Branning narrowly defeated the moderate James Kitchens (still salty about that result). I hope when the map gets redrawn, Branning has to run again and gets defeated because State Supreme Courts don’t need anymore religious nutjobs presiding as judges.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Mike's avatar

    I’m not sure how much longer Grassley is going to be able to hold off.

    Trump Promises Lawsuit Over Senate’s ‘Blue Slips’ for Judges

    It’s a Bloomberg Law, didn’t want this comment locked away for moderation so I didn’t link it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      And this will be one time in fully supporting Trump to succeed. I just hope it’s sometime around next year September when he does. I want it as dose to the midterms as possible when it succeeds. That way if Democrats pull off a senate miracle then it won’t matter. And even if they don’t pick up 4 seats, if they can get the majority down to 1 or 2, at least it will only take a couple senators to de facto agree not to vote for any nominees that don’t have blue slips to still block them. But that way we would have over two full years of them officially being gone so next time Democrats are back in power, they will have their rules in place from day one. 

      Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      Now let me show you some of the things Republicans said about blue slips for circuit  court nominees, the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees & about Trump as a whole, in the past. Trust me, it will sound nothing like what they say now. If you keep putting you trust in what a MAGA Republican says today, you surely will keep being disappointed tomorrow. 

      Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        Did you not read the article ? The GOP does not want Democrats filling judicial slots in their state.

        I know it’s popular sentiment here that circuit seats are more important. But, it has been the district courts that have been very effective as compared to the circuit and supreme court.

        In short, the ruling last week by an edpa judges that Habba has no authority as a US Attorney was a show stopper.

        I don’t see how Trump can circumvent that ruling. No one on the GOP wants Democrats in charge of judges in their state.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ryan J's avatar

        I’m not sure what to think on the current blue slip debate, but district court seats are undoubtedly important.

        * Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong (C.D. Cal.) blocked ICE from racial profiling in Los Angeles.
        * Joseph Laplante (N.H.) issued a nationwide injunction against Trump’s ending of birthright citizenship, spitting in the face of a SCOTUS ruling that tried to stop him from doing that
        * Myong Joun (Massachusetts) issued another injunction against Trump’s attempt to defund education, ruling that he is NOT bound by SCOTUS’s unsigned, unexplained order reversing his first injunction
        * 2 district judges in Vermont (Geoffrey Crawford & William K. Sessions) ordered the release of students detained by ICE. The administration complied.
        * Naomi Reice Buchwald (S.D.N.Y.) ordered ICE NOT to detain Yunseo Chung, another protestor targeted by ICE. She was not detained.

        And the list goes on. Frimpong and Joun could be considered beneficiaries of blue slips, given their predecessors took senior status in 2016 and 2018, respectively. Given there are more seats in blue states than red states, and the current Texas rules which would prevent Democratic appointees in Dallas from hearing lawsuits in Amarillo, I lean towards opposing ending blue slips, though I will support it again once Democrats have the White House & Senate.

        Liked by 1 person

  26. beyondnonjd's avatar

    In case of interest to anyone here who focuses on senior status: https://reason.com/volokh/2025/08/25/who-are-the-republican-appointed-circuit-judges-who-are-not-taking-senior-status-because-of-emil-bove/ (focus on the conversations around why more people aren’t going senior).

    I have a nice 11-tab Excel sheet on this stuff so very little I wasn’t already following. With Judge Godbey announcing senior status, there are three other former chief judges I believe reached the Rule of 80 and ended their 7-year chief terms early. I’ll be curious if we hear about any of them going senior soon. Quick Google searches didn’t turn anything up.

    The nomination, confirmation, and departure of Article III judges is a really interesting way to introduce the U.S. legal and political systems to LL.B. students abroad (and one of the many ways Article I, Article II, and Article III interact, intersect, and collide).

    Liked by 3 people

  27. beyondnonjd's avatar

    Unsure if this is too off-topic, but since it’s very much related to the Article III judges we talk about:

    Trump-appointed judge rebukes White House for ‘smear’ of judiciary

    The administration tried to sue 15 federal judges over a court policy related to deportation orders. A different judge tossed out the case.

    https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/26/trump-judge-rebukes-white-house-smear-00525450

    And should we keep using this page? Listserv? Figure out how to make our own board? I follow this stuff every day (and week) so I’m happy to do work with others for us to figure out a way to keep the community going.

    Liked by 2 people

  28. beyondnonjd's avatar

    http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/nominations-09-03-2025

    Nomination hearing set for September 3. I believe this is the third opportunity for Guard (M.D. Fla.) to be included. Has anyone seen anything reported publicly on the delay? I would have thought he would’ve been included with Meredith/Mercer on July 30 given the extra seats.

    I haven’t seen Mascott or Taibelson sent to the Senate yet on the Congress website (by PN). By my count, the 2 circuit (CCA3 + CCA7), and 9 district announced (3x Alabama, 2x Mississippi, 4x North Carolina) people and Guard.

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Ryan J's avatar

    So much news today!!! In a third piece of news, the Federal Circuit just struck down Trump’s tariffs. I think this is the first time ever that the Federal Circuit has heard such a politically charged case. The vote was 7-4, with a seemingly unusual vote breakdown. However, I wonder whether this vote breakdown is indicative of the judges’ political views, given that only 3 of the 11 broke from the party of the president that appointed them.

    7 judges (Lourie, Dyk, Reyna, Hughes, Stoll, Cunningham, Stark) voted to strike down the tariffs, while 4 judges (Moore, Prost, Taranto, Chen) dissent.

    The majority consists of 1 GHW Bush appointee, 1 Clinton appointee, 3 Obama appointees, & both Biden appointees. The dissenters are 2 GW Bush appointees & 2 Obama appointees.

    Liked by 2 people

  33. beyondnonjd's avatar

    Judge Rosenberg (S.D. Fla.) news with her new assignment at the FJC: https://www.flsp.uscourts.gov/sites/flsp/files/2025-59%20Reassignment%20of%20Cases%20Upon%20the%20Appointment%20of%20Judge%20Robin%20L.%20Rosenberg%20as%20Director%20of%20the%20FJC%2008-01-2025.pdf.

    The Wikipedia page for the S.D. Fla. court has a similar situation to what we’ve seen in N.D. Ill. and E.D.N.Y. during the Biden presidency with new seats. I’ve yet to see the federal courts website add the new seat. But an Obama appointee with a Democrat Senator taking on a new role for now and a new seat under Trump 2.0 and two Republican Senators being added.

    There’s also a news article. Google “Robin Rosenberg step down.” But she’s not Rule of 80 eligible and she’s staying on the Court (and possibly retaining cases). Past AIII judges who took this role stayed active, so the wording may be off? The article does have some interesting quotes.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. shawnee68's avatar

    Feinstein was the best Senator the state of California ever had. So what if she wasn’t feeling well in her final years?

    The guy she last ran against “Democrat “ Kevin De Leon is a racist . The things he said about people behind closed doors was unforgivable .

    He didn’t have the grace to leave office when his remarks were reported.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Feinstein absolutely was a great senator. Unfortunately, she stayed in office a little too long, so those last few years cost the Democrats a lot with the time she missed. But again, I won’t speak ill of those that has gone & past. I’ll remember her for the majority of her great career. I look forward to doing the same for senator Padilla for decades to come hopefully.

      Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        I live in California and have not heard anyone say she stayed too long .

        She did her job until the very end.Win elections outside of California so there isn’t a need to attack someone because they are sick.

        We have the most comprehensive laws on people who become disabled called FEHA.

        We don’t throw people in the trash because they have a condition .

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        This country of over 340 million people only has 100 US senators to represent us all. Without singling any one senator out, if you can’t show up & do your job for a significantly long time, you need to look in the mirror & make the best decision for the country, not yourself. If you are a school teacher, fire fighter or work at Walmart & you have a condition that is going to keep you out of work for a significantly long time, that’s one thing. We are talking about being a United States senator. There is too much on the line for any one senator to be out for a significantly long time, particularly when the senate is divided 50-50 or 51-49.

        And again, I’m not picking on any one person. I’m saying as a whole, the Democrat Party needs to look itself in the mirror & bring in fresh blood. I’ll give the Republicans credit for doing that. Besides Trump & Grassley, most of the leadership is fairly young in terms of DC standards. Look at the House. Had the Democrats that passed away since the last election all stayed alive, the Big Beautiful Bill could have been defeated. And before you say it, yes, I know you can still die in your 30’s. But on the average, somebody in their 70’s or older is more likely to pass away than somebody in their 30’s or 40’s. That’s not throwing people in the trash, that’s just speaking reality.

        Like

  36. shawnee68's avatar

    No, the folks in so cal don’t drive that to hit a beach . I live in no cal and when so cal people come here for school or to relocate they suffer .

    Yes, we have beaches but they are much different.

    We don’t have Disneyland , Universal Studios and much more.

    You remove teenagers from that environment and place them in Washington DC.

    Look at Fetterman he is having a tough time he lives on the east coast .

    I am pretty sure it will be Ro Khanna he is all over the state including the conservative parts conducting town hall meetings.

    He’s a neighboring congressman and I hear more from him than Zoe Lofgren.

    Like

    • lilee2122's avatar

      I, myself, am saying for now leave Padilla in senate, not until his kids grow up…This next year Dems need all hands on deck and also in the field…With this country’s current very serious crises in the direction of our country….no time to make uncertain changes to a stable democratic seat . In a year , year n a half take stock again…..Padilla seat and vote is too important at least in the run up to 2026….

      Liked by 1 person

      • shawnee68's avatar

        Are you kidding me? He should not have been selected by Newsom in the first place: an attempt to get latino voters.

        The Senate is not the right office for Padilla. That’s not my decision it’s his. He would rather be Governor and that suits his background .

        When Padilla runs he will lose anyway as Katie Porter is gaining steam now that Kamala isn’t running.

        Padilla is a placeholder he’s not gonna stay . lol

        He’s not better than Feinstein, Harris , Boxer and Cranston.

        Gavin Newsom is lousy when it comes to appointing Senators.

        Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        What are you talking about ? Did you know who Padilla was before Newsom appointed him? I know I didn’t .

        There are plenty of Democrats in the house Ro Khanna , Eric Swalwell and others who would be more effective and actually want to be there .

        I hear and see more about those two than I do about Padilla. I am ready to vote for someone who really wants to be there .

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        If you didn’t know who Alex Padilla was before Newsom appointed him then I guess I know California better than you do. I was very familiar with Padilla before then. And I live over 3,000 miles away… Don’t worry, you should have a couple of decades to get to know him better with him being a US senator in DC. 

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        I love how you move the goal post. First Padilla was a bad pick. Then nobody ever heard of him. Now you want me to name the legislation he helped pass. We all know if I did, you will just ask me what’s his blood type & social security number next. Nice try. Just worry about what he will continue to do as US senator. We have a couple more decades so enjoy!!! 

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Before Padilla was a senator… 

        1. He was president of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials

        2. He chaired the Los Angeles Leadership Council for the American Diabetes Association

        3. He fought against California Proposition 187

        4. He served as a campaign manager to no less than three different political, all whom won.

        5.  He was president of the California League of Cities

        Ok, now that I’ve answered your question, go ahead & do what you do best, which is move the goal post. I

        Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Uuummm, yes you get credit for fighting for something even if you ultimately don’t win. You get credit for being on the right side of history. And the job of US Senator seems to be doing just fine for him. I can’t make him stay anymore than you cm’s make him go. I got my money on he will be a US senator come 2027. 

        Like

  38. Mike S.'s avatar

    Does anyone have an interest in writing a post on the state of the judiciary nine months into the Trump administration? Or just a general update post on nominees? I know Dequan had been in regular contact with Harsh, I wonder if Harsh would be alright with another post going up. At the very least, that restarts the comments thread…

    Liked by 1 person

  40. 39wimpyclues's avatar

    Was bored so I decided to go over the partisanship of Wisconsin Court of Appeals by district.

    District I- 4 liberals. Became completely liberal after Sara Geenen defeated the then conservative Chief Judge Bill Brash back in 2023. Based on my opinion, aside from a stellar campaign, she also rode on Janet Protasiewicz’s coattails.

    District II- 3-1 conservative supermajority. I’d say this is borderline right-wing considering the three “conservative” judges — Mark Gundrum, Shelley Grogan, Maria Lazar — all have ties to noted right-wing figures like Scott Walker and Rebecca Bradley. Lazar, in particular, would probably run against Chris Taylor next year though I think she won’t win due to Taylor’s fundraising and the political environment. Lisa Neubauer, the court’s sole liberal judge, is also running for re-election next year and is facing a Walker-endorsed opponent. Let’s hope Chris Taylor supports her.

    District III- 2-1 conservative majority. Both the conservative judges, Thomas Hruz and Gregory Gill, have been endorsed and received from Republican-aligned officials. Hruz has also been documented to have given donations to Scott Walker and Rebecca Bradley go figure. Aside from them, there’s Lisa Stark. Though she was appointed by Scott Walker, she has garnered a reputation as a fair judge AND recently endorsed Chris Taylor in her 2026 run.

    District IV- 5 liberals. Nothing much to say other than Chris Taylor’s one of the 5 liberals and is running next year. Assuming she’ll win and I know she will, I hope Tony Evers appoints a younger judge in her stead. Someone in their mid 30s to early 40s.

    And that’s it. Hope you enjoyed my little shallow dive into the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. I hope Wisconsin Dems turn their sights here after they get that sweet sweet liberal supermajority on the SCOWIS.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Mitch's avatar

      @39wimpyclues

      To add some context is to know where the Wisconsin districts are.

      District 1 is Milwaukee County. Obviously a liberal stronghold.

      District 2 is the southeastern part of the state outside of Milwaukee, including the suburban counties called the WOW Counties.

      District 3 is the mostly rural part of the state.

      District 4 is the south-central and southwestern part of the state. The progressive stronghold of Madison (state government and university) is a major part of the population.

      Liked by 2 people

      • 39wimpyclues's avatar

        So Districts 1 and 4 are gonna be liberal strongholds for years to come.

        Am curious though. Is it feasible for District 2 and 3 to have a liberal majority or complete takeover in the next few years? I mean, both Lisa Neubauer and Lisa Stark got elected despite being ostensibly liberal/moderate.

        Liked by 1 person

  42. Mike's avatar

    Senate Republicans are zeroing in on a rule change, which would be enacted through the “nuclear option,” that would allow them to expeditiously confirm scores of President Trump’s executive branch and judicial nominees.

    The idea is based on a Democratic proposal unveiled two years ago that would allow a single vote on up to 10 nominees. The nascent GOP plan is unlikely to stick to the 10-nominee figure, and could be broadened out to include nominees from multiple committees in one bloc.

    New article titled “Senate GOP zeroes in on plan to end Trump nominee blockade”.

    It’s wild how Senate Dems never have the guts to do this stuff first.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mitch's avatar

      John Thune threatened to change those rules. He may just be saying this to get Democrats not to be so obstinate. They haven’t made any moves yet.

      Trump renewed his proposal to do away with the blue slip, much to the annoyance of Charles Grassley.

      I don’t rule out another Gang of 14 type of arrangement. But the Senate is more polarized than it was in 2005.

      Liked by 1 person

  43. beyondnonjd's avatar

    And for those focused on the confirmation part, Lanahan and Artau cloture filed last night. Not sure if they’ll get to them this week or next week, but was a bit surprised they didn’t wrap up the judges on the calendar before August recess.

    Liked by 1 person

  45. Mitch's avatar

    A dozen Federal judges have anonymously criticized the U.S. Supreme Court for overturning their rulings in emergency rulings without explanation. They all said that the high court should include better explanations as to why they overturned the lower court rulings. They fear that the terse statements make them look like they’re biased and issued shoddy rulings.

    While one Obama appointee said that there was Trump Derangement Syndrome in the judiciary and that some judges “don’t know to stay in their lane,” that the Supreme Court needs to at least provide guidance in their overturning.

    John Roberts has subtly denounced some of the condemnations of Federal judges, but these judges say he needs to do it more forcefully.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ryan J's avatar

      I read an article today titled “The overwhelming evidence that the Supreme Court is on Donald Trump’s team”. It talks about how the Supreme Court is playing by different rules for Trump.

      When normal litigants (except for death penalty cases) come to the Supreme Court, they have to wait their turn. This has been the norm for a long time. But Trump gets special treatment. Out of all the requests for “emergency relief” that Trump has asked SCOTUS for this year, the justices have only ruled against him twice, and have ruled in his favor at least 16 times.

      SCOTUS used the made-up “major questions doctrine” to block Biden’s attempt to forgive student loans (without congressional approval). The Federal Circuit cited that SCOTUS decision to find that Trump cannot impose tariffs without congressional approval. These tariffs have a much larger financial impact than Biden’s attempt to forgive student loans, making this a clear decision using Nebraska v. Biden as precedent. But do I expect SCOTUS to apply the “major questions doctrine” equally to Republican presidents? No. I expect they will find some way to ok his tariffs or at least let them stay in effect without making an actual ruling.

      Until I see otherwise, it’s pretty clear that the Republican and Democratic justices vote along their party lines. Even Roberts, who stopped some of Trump’s worst instincts during his first term, is ruling in Trump’s favor pretty consistently now. SCOTUS cannot be trusted to do the right thing even for Trump’s worst violations of the Constitution.

      Liked by 1 person

  46. Mitch's avatar

    Jennifer Mascott and others testified before the SJC yesterday. Mascott was questioned about her residency in Maryland and her views on executive power. It looks like Chris Coons is going to oppose her nomination.

    Democrats tried to call her extreme, but her public record on ideology is pretty thin. She’s spent a lot of time on technical issues which don’t excite people.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Joe's avatar

      Mascott was selected over the objections of both home state senators, that should be enough for all Democrats to oppose as far as I’m concerned. Other than Kennedy voting for Mathis to prove a point, I don’t think any other GOP senators crossed lines for similar picks under Biden, did they?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Scott Royce's avatar

      I’ve only done a little work on Mascott, but it looks as if she’s bad to the bone, unless you like unitary executive theory and the right’s current “we’re in charge now and we’re going to stick it you” approach to government. Her Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire tops 80 pages–much of it a listing of speeches and articles that suggests the woman never sleeps. Indicative of her politics is the fact she filed an amicus brief in Loper Bright Enterprises (which undermined Chevron deference) in the Supreme Court on behalf of Sen. Cruz, Rep. Mike Johnson, and 34 other dubious Congressional characters.

      Liked by 1 person

  48. 39wimpyclues's avatar

    Appeals court rejects Trump’s bid to deport Venezuelan immigrants he deems ‘alien enemies’ – POLITICO

    Looks like Judge Leslie Southwick handed another blistering ruling against Republicans, this time against Trump’s bid to deport Venezuelan migrants he deemed “gang members.”

    This is his second ruling against right-wing interests, and I hope he continues this streak alongside his other relatively moderate Republican-appointed colleagues. And I hope the current political environment makes him reconsider retiring/taking senior status under another GOP term.

    Liked by 2 people

      • Joe's avatar

        I agree with Dequan, the blue slip is not long for this world. There aren’t really enough blue state vacancies right now to justify breaking the blue slip rule. But it is coming.

        But in 2027, when they are all out of red state vacancies and the CA, NY, etc openings start piling up? You better believe Trump is going to start howling about it and the GOP will do whatever he says.

        I think about the only way to avoid it would be Dems retaking the senate and making the whole point moot, but that is a long shot.

        Liked by 1 person

      • lilee2122's avatar

        Democrats need to retake the senate in 2026…I see this as an imperative..Very very important to help our country during these destructive times…Scotus decisions are helping to undermine our constitutional rights while degrading the Equal word in our 3 coEqual branches of government..Ohio and Iowa senate seat opportunities North Carolina also…

        Like

Leave a reply to Ryan J Cancel reply