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. Joe's avatar

    Right now I’m only counting 8 vacancies (MA, MA, CT, SDNY, SDNY, EDMI, SDCA, NDGA) plus 4 future vacancies (Maine, EDPA, SDNY, NM) that require a Democrat to sign off. Probably not worth it for now. But it is coming.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      Two more vacancies announced yesterday. Only Cathy Seibel (SDNY) requires a Democrat blue slip since the other is Jane Boyle (NDTX). But yes, once the circuit court & red state vacancies run out you better believe the pressure will be ramped up by Trump to ditch blue slips. And unless I’m missing something, I’ve seen NOTHING to convince me senate Republicans will stand up to Trump. They literally are standing up to not release the Epstein files, going against victims of sexual abuse to protect Trump. What makes anybody think blue slips is some holy grail that they will draw the line at.

      Like

  2. 39wimpyclues's avatar

    Anyway, Maria Lanahan is now confirmed, and the partisan composition of the Eastern District of Missouri is now an incredibly lopsided 8-1 conservative supermajority. And I’d go so far as to say, it’s a far-right court seeing so many judges here worked for anti-abortion and anti-gay causes.

    And this would’ve never happened had the Clinton and Obama judges just stayed put. Seriously, don’t understand what possessed them to retire/take senior status despite knowing how uncooperative Hawley and Schmitt are. And they look relatively healthy too. You’d think these ostensibly liberal judges would know that but apparently not. At least the Western District of Missouri is still a liberal bastion with a 5-2 composition.

    Again, badly timed retirements/senior status will undo the gains Biden did in the court. We saw that with the 3rd and 6th Circuit and many more district courts to come. Let’s just hope conservative/right-wing judges make the same mistake too but I doubt that.

    Trump’s latest Senate-approved judge turns St. Louis court into conservative stronghold | Reuters

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Mitch's avatar

    This doesn’t involve judges, but did anyone hear about what happened to Charlie Kirk from Turning Point? It’s unbelievable. Assassinating someone because you don’t like his opinion? It’s unconscionable. I can’t imagine how this is affecting his family and friends, he had two young children who his widow has to raise alone.

    As I mentioned in a previous posting, Federal judges are getting more threats every day. Is there any way the temperature can get turned down in this country?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dequan's avatar

      I saw the video. While I disagreed strongly with Charlie Kirk’s views, we never want to see political violence in our country. It’s sad. And to answer your question, it will be very hard to turn the temperature down in this country. We have more guns than people & too many of those people believe violence is the answer. I wish I could say I see better days on the horizon but most likely not. In the meantime, thoughts & prayers to the Kirk family.

      Like

  4. 39wimpyclues's avatar

    I’m not saying the liberal judges who stepped down should’ve stayed until death but they should’ve made an effort and stayed longer seeing as they were in their late 60s to early 70s when they retired/took senior status

    Meanwhile, the longest active judges right now are mostly conservatives. Do you think Edith Jones or Jerry Smith would step down early had Texas become a blue state?

    And let’s be real, badly timed retirements are politically useful. Need I remind you of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Or for a more recent case, Jane B. Stranch? We had a 9-7 composition in the 6th and it went to back to a 10-6 conservative majority once more.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. beyondnonjd's avatar

    Two updates:

    (1) Another Texas judge with a quick senior turnaround. 05-TX-N Boyle,Jane J. W. Bush Senior 8/28/2025 10/1/2025

    (2) Nominations hearing scheduled for September 17. CCA7 + the 4 NC district seats? Has anyone seen any news articles on Guard’s nomination? The rest of the Florida batch had their hearing on June 25.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Scott Royce's avatar

      Re Guard: Perhaps the Florida Republicans are having a factional spat that’s holding up things, or that kooky Loomer woman is throwing some sort of fit. With Trump, you can never be quite sure what’s going on. As I recall, one his earliest first term District Court picks was a black guy from Alabama. But after the announcement, nothing happened for ages; and when he eventually surfaced again, the poor fellow had his name submitted to fill an entirely different vacancy…

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Mitch's avatar

    Today, the SJC voted on 12-10 party lines to advance four judicial nominations. They are Eric Tung for the Ninth Circuit, Joshua Dunlap for the First Circuit, William Mercer for the District of Montana, and Chad Meredith of the Eastern District of Kentucky.

    I thought that Dunlap might get some cross party votes. He’s a commercial litigator who seemed to be the most “vanilla” of Trump’s judicial nominees and Susan Collins endorsed him. It didn’t happen, Sheldon Whitehouse denounced him for testifying in favor of a parental consent law.

    Also advanced were several U.S. Attorney nominees. One of them is Arch Moore Capito of West Virginia, whose mother is a U.S. Senator.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Scott Royce's avatar

      Dunlap once interned for the Alliance Defending Freedom (sic), served from 2016-21 as a Federalist Society state chair, was a speaker for the Family Research Council in Maine, has been a GOP activist, represents the Maine Chamber of Commerce in an attempt to bat down family and medical leave rules promulgated by the Maine Department of Labor, was lead counsel in a challenge to ranked choice voting, etc., etc. No reason for Dems to go soft on his confirmation.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Also today senate Republicans officially changed the rules to allow them to confirm batches of nominees at a time. Of course, I advocated for Democrats to do that when they were in power but people on this site said noooo. Now Republicans will reap the benefit for the next three years. Next up is blue slips for district court nominees. Of course, the same people who keep thinking this is their grandfather’s Republican Parry will tell you that’s not going to happen. And of course they will be wrong AGAIN.

        Like

  8. Mike's avatar

    once again, Senate Republicans showing they have guts and know how to use power to help themselves because the American voters are indifferent or ignorant.

    ”The first confirmation vote under the new rules is expected to take place next week and include 48 nominees, many of whom are slated for under or assistant secretary positions at various departments and agencies.”

    Liked by 1 person

  9. 39wimpyclues's avatar

    For some other news aside from the usual doom and gloom, anyone know the political leanings of the 8th Circuit judges?

    As all know, it only has one Dem-appointed judge, Jane Kelly of Iowa. Thus, it’s most definitely an incredibly lopsided 10-1 conservative supermajority.

    But I do want to know if any of the Republican-appointed judges are more moderate/liberal compared to their other colleagues.And if it’s possible for it to be a liberal-leaning court soon.

    I, for one, have hope this would happen seeing as 2 Bush-appointed (4 already eligible) will be eligible for senior status in 2028 and so far, none of them have signaled any plans to step down or take senior status. Also, 2 of the 4 Trump appointees (Erickson and Grasz) are relatively older compared to his usual appointees so who knows if it’ll end up backfiring against him.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Zack's avatar

    It sucks there will be a flip on the 1st Circuit instead of the all Democratic Circuit Court it should have been but it is what it is.
    All I can say is Dunlap is going to be writing dissents most of his career, hope he enjoys that.
    As for Tung, nothing to be done there, Ikuta was NEVER going to go senior under a Democratic president and would still be in active service today if Harris had won.
    As for the nuclear rule change, that’s what happens when you have 53 Republicans versus 51 or 50.
    We never had the votes to do that under Biden.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Humanfault's avatar

    It really is crazy just how young Trump’s new nominees are this term. 4 of the 6 confirmed district court judges are all in their thirties while it appears all of his appellate court nominees are in their forties. I remember when the nomination for Brad Garcia came out and I was a bit uncomfortable with the fact that he was in his mid-thirties but I suppose it really has become a new norm- at least among Republicans.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. lilee2122's avatar

    Leave Padilla where he is.. Hispanics are very underrepresented in the Senate.. I dont see Katie Porter being elected … I say this in general.. I hope the Dems dont keep making the same mistake in this Trump and ultra far right era….. Wealthy , bully type billionaires. .. the women who end up losing to them….We need to coalesce around a moderate democrat probably male who can pull the country together…Like they did in 2020 for Biden.. Frankly women voted for Obama in droves he pulled everyone together… No time to pussy foot around..Brad Garcia is smart to be quiet with his head down.. Free speech is over …. look at all the men who voted for Trump.. time to get them back in democrat camps…..

    Liked by 1 person

  13. shawnee68's avatar

    We don’t need someone to represent “hispanics” in the state of California .

    What we need is the best person we can get regardless of what box they check.

    I am just following the polls that are posted that show Katie Porter is ahead. Of course polls are not official but that’s how her opponents view the race.

    There are lots places you can look to find judges. People are too lazy to look elsewhere. As if DC is representing the whole nation . It does not.

    Like

  14. 39wimpyclues's avatar

    I was looking at state supreme courts and to my surprise, the Louisiana Supreme Court has a rather equal partisan composition.

    There’s 4 Republicans, 2 Democrats, and 1 Independent so for all intents and purposes, it’s a 4-3 split. Granted, I don’t have any knowledge on Louisiana courts so for all I know that independent justice (Chief Justice Weimer) leans conservative. But still, for a southern state, it’s rather impressive Democrats made strides in its supreme court even if it’s the result of court mandated redistricting.

    Hypothetically though, if Louisiana Democrats had the desire and funds, could they potentially flip the seats currently held by the 4 Republican justices? Especially since all 4 of them are up for reelection in 2026 and 2028.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Mike's avatar

    I didn’t realize Joshua Divine was 34 years old when he was confirmed in May.

    Trump beat Bidens youngest judicial nominees Jamar Walker and Bradley Garcia by confirming someone 3 years in only 5 months.

    I think we’ll be seeing a large percentage of young conservatives in their 30s confirmed over the next 4 years, especially once the older conservatives who’ve been waiting for their seats are rewarded by their Republican senators.

    An army of 30 something MAGA jurists.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Zack's avatar

    On a different note, if you read the excerpts from Joe Manchin’s latest book, you can see why we had the trouble we did at the end with Circuit Court nominees.
    The fact he says he’s glad Republicans won the Senate because it will protect the filibuster says it all about what a prick he is and IMO, it’s clear more then ever that if Democrats had the numbers, he would have flipped parties.
    I’m glad for the judges we did get from him but good riddance to bad rubbish.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. beyondnonjd's avatar

    https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/nominations-09-17-2025

    For those continuing to track: CCA7 (all circuit seats open and announced in the future are now in the process) and all four N.C. district seats (2x W.D. + 2x M.D.). No Guard once again, with the fifth slot in Panel 2 for the position for Director of National Drug Control Policy.

    Amazing to me that we’re now ~10 months since the election and still no names for Texas (up to 10 current + future), Louisiana (4), Alaska (2 of the 3 seats), and Kansas (now up to 3). Missouri’s SJQ responses show the senators were laser focused on AIII judges. Obviously a lot of behind the scenes stuff needs to happen.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Mitch's avatar

    Did anyone hear about Rebecca Taibleson’s confirmation? Some conservatives have qualms about her. She once donated to the reelection of Joe Manchin and also donated to the Milwaukee Jewish Federation, which is considered liberal. In addition, her husband Ben Taibleson might be a Democrat and they attend a liberal synagogue. Ted Cruz asked some skeptical questions, but his tone became more supportive as the hearing went on. He seemed satisfied with her explanations.

    Tammy Baldwin hasn’t ruled out supporting Taibleson yet. It’s possible that Taibleson will be less conservative than the judge she’s replacing.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Scott Royce's avatar

      Yes, a bunch of looney tunes headed by J. Kenneth Blackwell of the so-called Conservative Action Project went off the reservation and issued an ill-conceived attack memo on Taibleson shortly before her confirmation hearing. Their charges against her include (gasp!) donating to Manchin ($50 out of her lifetime FEC-listed federal total of a mere $350) and, horrors, giving to the Jewish charity. They accuse the latter of backing LGBTQ rights; in reality, as more sensible conservatives have since written at length, it’s the equivalent of other religious charitable umbrella groups, collecting money for a wide variety of Jewish organizations. Etc. I’ve seen and added to my file on her quite a few responses to the CAP blunder, all challenging its “facts” and interpretations, and some all but accusing the gang of borderline anti-semitism. Taibleson is yet another awful Trump nominee who definitely deserves to be sent back to Wisconsin, but not for any of the reasons CAP cites. So far as I can tell, btw, no one in the Senate GOP caucus is taking CAP’s b.s. seriously. Attacking a former clerk to Scalia and Kavanaugh as some kind of closet left-wing radical makes you look pretty stupid at best.

      Liked by 1 person

  20. Mike S.'s avatar

    One of the benefits of the craziness and authoritarianism from the Trump administration these last few weeks seems to be that less federal judges will be inclined to assume senior status. Along with the far right caliber of nominees so far, I believe more traditional minded conservatives will rethink going senior during this administration.

    Liked by 3 people

  21. Humanfault's avatar

    I know there has been some discussion about Trump’s other appellate nominees but does anyone have a more detailed understanding of Eric Tung? I’ve struggled to find information relating to him and I’d be interested to know if he’s more in-line with the more traditionally conservative 9th circuit Trump-appointees like Bridget Bade and Eric Miller, or more of a hardliner like Patrick Bumatay and Lawrence Van Dyke.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Scott Royce's avatar

      Have you looked at Tung’s Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire and Questions for the Record? There’s quite a bit of useful info in both. Also, Accountable put out a fairly good report on the guy, if I recall correctly. Tung clerked for Scalia and Gorsuch, is a Federalist Society member, and has filed briefs for and in support of some of the cryptocurrency racket people, as well as UPS and the California Hospital Association. He also once submitted an amicus brief that backed the independent state legislature theory–something not even the current Supreme Court wanted to embrace. See Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023). The brief itself should be available on both Westlaw and Lexis, as well as on the Supreme Court website. Tung is also reportedly a long-time pal of Trump judge picker Mike Davis–which probably explains how he leaped to the head of the pack for a Ninth Circuit seat…

      Liked by 3 people

  22. 39wimpyclues's avatar

    Anyone got anything on the North Carolina nominees? Couldn’t find a thing about them other than they were all prosecutors and even then I’m not sure if all of them are.

    Honestly, was hoping Trump would make a dumb move and nominate some judges from the NC Court of Appeals so Gov. Josh Stein would nominate a Democratic judge in their stead. But alas, can’t have everything.

    Like

  23. Mike S.'s avatar

    There was an interesting article on the “Balls and Strikes” blog regarding Rebecca Taibleson’s recent hearing. (JP Collins is a regular contributor to the site)

    https://ballsandstrikes.org/nominations/rebecca-taibleson-obergefell-hearing/

    I am curious about her jurisprudence. On the one hand, she certainly has the conservative bona fides. On the other, she has influences (and donations) that seem to indicate she isn’t a diehard ideologue. Part of me wonders, if feeling she had to shore up conservative support, she felt the need to reassure nervous senators of her loyalty to the right-wing cause. Time will only tell once she is confirmed to the bench. That said, I still feel as though she was our best hope for a nominee to the 7th Circuit.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. beyondnonjd's avatar

    Haven’t been paying as much attention (teaching an intro to U.S. law and politics course in China for September and October; y’all may like that the nomination, confirmation, and departure of AIII judges is one of the key themes!). But the next EBM is next Wednesday not Thursday: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/executive-business-meeting-10-01-2025.

    Still surprised at how slow they have been with Texas and Alaska (and to a degree, Louisiana, given Senator Kennedy’s outsized visibility on the SJC). Kansas is now at 50% capacity (not including senior) as well.

    Liked by 2 people

  26. Lillie's avatar

    Per the future judicial vacancies page David Proctor in N.D. Alabama is going senior. GW Bush appointee, not sure about his leanings.

    IIRC this was a guy a few years ago that was in the headlines for making lawyers on both sides go out to lunch because they were being argumentative and he’d had enough of it.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. 39wimpyclues's avatar

    Anyone know the exact partisanship of the Montana Supreme Court?

    All articles I found were pretty vague and the ostensibly conservative ones have their moments such as Chief Justice Swanson who, despite being a conservative Republican, openly appealed to the Republican State Legislature to not make future judicial elections partisan.

    And with another “non-partisan” election on the horizon in 2026, let’s hope his principles stay firm in spite of possible pressures.

    Liked by 1 person

      • 39wimpyclues's avatar

        Wonderful to know it’s got a 5-2 liberal/moderate majority. Cory Swanson replacing the former liberal Chief Justice Mike McGrath was a huge disappointment but at least he seems principled if we take his plea to not judicial elections partisan into account

        At least next year, the Montana Supreme Court has the opportunity to shift more leftward if the liberal Amy Eddy is elected to the retiring Beth Baker’s seat. Let’s hope she beats whoever is the conservative candidate next year

        Speaking of state supreme court races next year, Chris Taylor finally got a conservative opponent in Wisconsin Court of Appeals 2nd District Judge Maria Lazar, and her track record is just as vile as Rebecca Bradley. Aside from advancing the interests of the Wisconsin GOP, she is also anti-abortion, anti-voting rights, and has ruled in favor of corporations causing pollution. Knowing Chris Taylor, she’ll beat this hyperpartisan hack handily next April. Definitely a 58-42 margin in favor of Judge Taylor.

        Liked by 2 people

  28. beyondnonjd's avatar

    Hi from Shanghai!

    Haven’t been able to watch today’s EBM, but quickly checked the results. Anyone know why the two Mississippi nominees were held over? They were listed with the Alabama and CCA3 seat, right?

    https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/db00d0e2-cc67-5097-2f2c-5b454f764495/2025-10-01_EBM_Results.pdf (18-4 is pretty impressive for an Alabama seat without any need for Democrat buy-in!). Mascott and LaCour at 12-10 was something I expected, and don’t know enough about Lewis for the 14-8 (Durbin + Schiff).

    Liked by 1 person

  29. beyondnonjd's avatar

    I think they just formally added the new seat for S.D. Florida for 8/25 (we saw this at least twice under Biden, one for E.D. New York & one for N.D. Illinois) https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judicial-vacancies/current-judicial-vacancies?order=field_opening_date&sort=asc

    11 – FL-S
    FJC Director
    08/25/2025

    Great deal for the Rs, right? A new seat to fill by President Trump and two R Senators for the FJC position for a President Obama appointee when Florida was (I believe?) a Purple state?

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Mitch's avatar

    Judge Deborah Boardman of the District of Delaware (a Biden appointee) is the center of a firestorm. She sentenced Nicholas Roske to 8 years for attempting to assassinate Brett Kavanaugh. Mike Davis charged that Boardman and other progressives approve of assassinations. Others charge that Boardman was more concerned about using the correct pronoun for the defendant (he claims to be trans now) than she was about the safety of the judiciary. Pam Bondi has vowed to appeal.

    Will Truth Central have anything to say about it?

    Liked by 1 person

  31. beyondnonjd's avatar

    For those continuing to track: I saw cloture filed on Mascott for CCA3. Does that mean a Thursday-Monday cloture-floor vote?

    Surprised to see Dunlap linger. I figured the combination of CCA1 being 0-5 (R-D) appointees right now and Senator Collins as the Senator would have been enough to line up at least a cloture-floor vote (even if skipping cloture probably a bridge too far). With Judge Ikuta seemingly in no rush, I wonder when they’ll get to Tung (and if Taibleson will jump the queue since the CCA7 is now 5-5 (R-D) and Judge Sykes going senior).

    I know the Senate is dealing with a lot right now and there aren’t too many AIII judges in the queue. But going from 7-6 (R-D) appointees to 8-6 after Mascott probably helps if we’ll see a push for more en banc reviews. I’ve noticed a couple contentious ones in CCA6 recently.

    From SJQs, we know the Missouri Senators were already moving to advance nominees this time 11 months ago. That we still have zero nominees out of Texas (I believe we’re up to 10 vacant seats) has been the most surprising thing for me so far.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Mitch's avatar

    Jennifer Mascott is now Judge Jennifer Mascott, by a 50 to 47 vote.

    The SJC just voted out a swath of judicial nominees. I thought that Rebecca Taibelson might get some Democratic support, but was voted out by a party-line vote. Does anyone know where Tammy Baldwin stands on her?

    The North Carolina nominees got some bipartisan support. I think that some Democrats owe Thom Tillis a favor of some kind and he just cashed it in.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Mike's avatar

      Even if Kamala won it’s unlikely she would have gotten to fill Kents seat but man I still can’t believe the Dems wouldn’t figure out what to do about Joseph Greenaways vacancy and gave that seat and the 8/6 conservative majority to someone as corrupt as Emil Bove.

      I was so excited to see the first Muslim judge on the circuit courts and still say the spineless Dems should’ve confirmed him when they had the chance for months but if you knew you would fail, just withdraw his nomination people.

      Liked by 1 person

  37. beyondnonjd's avatar

    Nominations hearing scheduled for 10/22. So I guess we’ll get a batch sometime before Tuesday. By my count, there are 30 “red” possibilities (if you include the R seat on the Court of International Trade).

    https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/nominations-10-22-2025

    Unable to watch the video on the SJC website from China. Did they vote out the Mississippi district court nominees?

    Mooty jumped the line and from the Senate Executive Calendar, looks to be a cloture vote today and then the 5:30pm (?) floor vote on Monday.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Mitch's avatar

    On Monday, there will be a vote on Hal Mooty of Northern Alabama will be voted on. The Senate already supported cloture by 62 to 34, he doesn’t seem to be controversial. He’s one of the leading commercial litigators in Huntsville, that’s all I know about him. Oddly, Wikipedia doesn’t have a picture of him.

    Afterwards, there will be cloture votes on Anne Leigh Gaylord Moe of Middle Florida, William Mercer of Alabama, and Chad Meredith of Eastern Kentucky.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Scott Royce's avatar

      You’re correct re Mooty being one of the less controversial Trump nominees so far this term. Since graduating from the U. Ala. School of Law, he has worked for two different firms in Huntsville, handling medical malpractice and commercial litigation. Mooty is a rare GOP pick who hasn’t been a member, it appears, of the Federalist Society. His major foray into politics was donating $2,100 to Katie Britt’s Senate campaign committee during the 2021-22 election cycle.

      Liked by 1 person

  40. Ryan J's avatar

    In the past week, there have been major rulings on whether Trump can federalize and/or deploy the National Guard:

    Oregon case:
    Karin Immergut (Trump judge) ruled that Trump cannot federalize or deploy the National Guard in Portland

    9th circuit ruled 2-1 (R. Nelson & Bade in majority; Graber dissenting) that Trump can federalize and deploy the National Guard in Portland. Both judges in the majority are Trump appointed, while Graber is a Clinton appointee.

    Illinois case:
    April Perry (Biden judge) ruled that Trump cannot federalize or deploy the National Guard in Chicago

    7th circuit (Rovner, Hamilton, St. Eve) ruled that Trump can federalize the troops but cannot deploy them. Rovner and Hamilton lean liberal, while St. Eve leans conservative.

    Liked by 2 people

  41. beyondnonjd's avatar

    Back in the U.S. in two weeks so I’ll be able to focus on this again. Two more district vacancy names announced. Wondering if they (and anyone else) will be at the Wednesday hearing.

    E.D. Louisiana (1) & W.D. Louisiana (1).

    William Crain is Trump’s pick for a vacancy on the US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, and Alexander Van Hook is his choice for a seat on the Western District of Louisiana, Trump posted Monday on Truth Social.

    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-taps-state-justice-ex-us-attorney-for-louisiana-us-courts

    Liked by 1 person

      • 39wimpyclues's avatar

        I looked at Trump’s appointments for Louisiana and barring one, all his judicial appointments there are above 50 with the oldest being 61 at the time of confirmation.

        Honestly, as long as he’s nominating older judges who are more likely to retire earlier rather than far-right hacks in their 30s and 40s who’ll stay in the courts for at least a generation, then we’ll be alright.

        Besides, William Crain is a Republican judge on the Louisiana Supreme Court and him leaving would make the partisan composition an even 3-3.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        I would outright vote for the Louisiana as well as the Montana nominees just based on age alone. Even if they are a far-right hack, I’ll take an older one with Republicans having 53 senators. As we saw with Bove, they will confirm just about anybody so Democrats should at least make it clear that if they are old, they will have a smooth confirmation.

        Like

  42. beyondnonjd's avatar

    Axios article is the first I’m seeing of reporting on the stalled Guard nomination. If you google Axios Guard judge you should be able to easily find it.

    Judiciary hearing looks to be the two Louisiana picks and an AAG for the DOJ. SJQs up. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-activity/hearings/nominations-10-22-2025

    Re: Louisiana and Mitch, I checked the ages for some of the Trump 1.0 judges in Louisiana. Complete speculation, but my sense is Kennedy would be looking for more “established” picks. Especially given his questioning of nominees.

    Speaking of speculation, anything on the Mississippi picks stalling? The only things I can think of that would hold both are at least one R who would vote no in committee on both, something related to the selection process, or more information needed before a vote. Anything else more benign possible?

    Liked by 1 person

  44. beyondnonjd's avatar

    Good morning from Shanghai! Skimmed the SJC Hearing today, looks like Duva got the majority of the questions.

    Kennedy highlighted in his opening the power of the blue slips and the clout home state senators have on district court selections. Based on his questioning generally and his “lawyer’s lawyer” focus, I see him continuing to support nominees with long established track records of excellence. I just don’t see that in the < 45 year old nominees (no matter how credentialed and impressive they are and their first 10-15 years of practice). The difference between the Hawley/Schmitt model is Louisiana will likely need to fill seats more often and wait longer for senior status/retirement/resignation.

    Mercer confirmed on party line vote. If you think about the Missouri model of “maximizing” who is confirmed (no need for bipartisan support), the first two Alabama picks definitely have stood out. By my count, the first ten confirmations had 2 D/I votes (King for Divine* and Welch for Dudek). Mooty, in contrast, received 14 D/I votes. No deeper insights into that, but I thought it was interesting given the ability in red states to “maximize selections. “Lewis received 60 votes for cloture today so more bipartisan support. LaCour I guess will be party line based on SJC EBM vote and history (Doug Jones blue slip).

    Mercer (D. Montana) confirmed today on a party line vote. Christensen was confirmed in 2011. Not just Obama but 2 Democrat Senators (Tester/Baucus). Been interesting to go back to those 2008-2014 maps, especially as I look at which judges confirmed around that time come up for Rule of 80 soon and how the Senate map has changed.

    Tailbleson (CCA7) jumped the queue and I think her cloture vote tomorrow is alongside Meredith (E.D. Kentucky). Doesn’t look like they’ll get to Lewis (M.D. Alabama) until next week, at least from the Senate Press Gallery post. If any circuit nominee is going to get bipartisan support, my guess is it would be her. Surprised they have been so slow on Dunlap, since Gelpi is technically a W. Bush appointee (elevated by Biden) and with Howard senior, outcomes may be slightly different based on (an admittedly small number of) draws.

    And a follow up, Mississippi isn’t just waiting on the two district nominees in the EBM but also the two U.S. attorneys. No idea what’s going on, but definitely send an article if anyone sees anything.

    Other things I’m curious about? When Alaska fills its two seats (one of three active judges is an Obama appointee); who Trump nominates for the Republican seat on the Court of International Trade; and when Texas will decide on any of the 10 seats (among other stuff!).

    Liked by 2 people

  46. beyondnonjd's avatar

    Article on a topic I think may interest some of the regular commenters.

    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/more-democrats-defy-progressive-calls-to-reject-trump-on-judges

    More Democrats Defy Progressive Calls to Reject Trump on Judges. (Tiana Headley is a judiciary reporter and is great to bookmark to keep up to date).

    “Progressive groups have urged blanket opposition to Trump’s judicial picks. Demand Justice, a liberal judicial advocacy group, has pledged under its new president to revive pressure tactics from the first Trump administration, including some that rankled Democrats.”

    Liked by 1 person

  47. shawnee68's avatar

    It’s not true that all of Trump’s nominations are bad just because he made them .

    There were several from Trump’s last term including Stephanie Dawkins Davis (Mich) who was a good nominee.

    I am sure Dequan will be pleased as punch that a few Trump nominees will be over 65.

    I agree those are nominees who need to confirmed.

    Like

    • Dequan's avatar

      @Shawnee68 is 100% correct here. Folks weave in face reality. Republicans have 53 senators & who doesn’t care about norms. Democrats should be encouraging him to nominate older judges by giving smoother confirmations when he does. Red state nominees are almost always going to be right wing regardless so they should make it be known that if they are at least older, they will have plenty of bipartisan support. If I was a senator I would deploy this strategy & encourage my colleagues to follow suit. 

      Liked by 1 person

  48. Rick's avatar

    Am I missing something, remember in Biden admin, Democrats couldn’t move on nominations while a bill was in process on the floor. Well, Republicans are moving on nominations while the funding bills are still not thru the senate. I thought the funding bills have to be passed before they can continue with nominations?

    Liked by 1 person

      • Rick's avatar

        The more I think about it, it’s practically a miracle as many judges were confirmed in the Biden admin.

        Between the ENDLESS headaches that Manchin and Sinema created. Then throw in all the COVID absences they had to deal with especially in the first 2 years. THEN there was the extended absences of Feinstein and Fetterman in 2023. Then, unlike now, no nominees were confirmed until pending bills were completed first. Also, the senate is session FAR more in this Congress – Democrats had way to many Mondays off. Republicans have mostly kept Fridays off this year, but there are no Mondays off for the most part unless its holiday or a regularly scheduled week off

        Liked by 1 person

      • Dequan's avatar

        Yup. Plus now Republicans have block confirmations of other non judicial nominees so that frees up the senate calendar more for judges. That’s what angers me so much. As hard as Democrats worked, had they done slightly more than the bare minimum, we could have had an even bigger impact. 

        Liked by 1 person

      • Joe's avatar

        I agree Rick. It’s amazing they were able to do what they did truthfully. I lament that Sarah Gideon and Bill Nelson did not win their respective senate races so we could have a workable majority too. I imagine we would’ve seen much more progressive and younger nominees pushed through. It’s a shame

        Liked by 1 person

    • shawnee68's avatar

      Yes, the Republicans spend more time on nominations because they are less interested in policy.

      Can you name any policy proposal they have that would do you any good ? Of course not.

      The Democrats did not have 53 Senators so those who not confirmed lacked the votes . It had nothing to do with how much time was being spent on nominations.

      Like

      • Dequan's avatar

        Are you joking? Republicans are passing legislation that they consider good just like Democrats do when they are in power. I’m not a Republican so I don’t consider what the Republicans pass as good but who cares. They are still passing them along with confirming judges at a rapid pace. They get it 

        Like

      • shawnee68's avatar

        Oh really like what? It’s good thing that we didn’t get rid of blue slips and the filibuster like some people wanted.

        We would be powerless. At least now we can keep the DOJ on their heels by blocking US Attorney’s.

        I don’t want to be like them and it wouldn’t work because anytime we get into the Whitehouse or the Senate the “progressives” do nothing but complain.

        Sometimes I think they prefer protesting, rather than having their own leaders in office.

        Like

Leave a reply to Joe Cancel reply