Let's Talk 3rd Circuit! Forum

[Anonymous User]

Let's shake this b*tch back up. What's going on in the Third?

There may be two new nominees shortly? It would be crazy for the democrats to let the DE seat (to be vacated by Judge Jordan in January) and the NJ seat (to which Mangi was nominated, but has faced serious resistance) go unfilled for Trump. Since time is running out my guess is that the democrats will try to fill both seats with uncontroversial district court judges, most likely Judge Hall (D. Del.) and Judge Farbiarz (D. N.J.)

There’s literally not enough time for new nominees - there’s this unspoken rule for nominees to wait 4 weeks for a judiciary committee hearing, then at least 2 weeks to get voted out of committee, and then who knows how long to get an actual floor vote. Schumer and Durbin aren’t going to break more norms now when they’re about to be in the minority for the next 4 years (there aren’t enough competitive seats for the Dems to regain control in ‘26).

Maybe there’s a slim chance that Cortez Masto/Rosen get over their opposition to Mangi now that the election’s over, but I wouldn’t count on it. The Jordan seat was also never going to be filled by this Congress b/c the vacancy doesn’t occur until the next Congress. More likely that Trump fills both seats and CA3 becomes like CA6—a slim Republican majority, but very conservative b/c all the Republicans are so far to the right.

[Anonymous User]

Let's shake this b*tch back up. What's going on in the Third?

There may be two new nominees shortly? It would be crazy for the democrats to let the DE seat (to be vacated by Judge Jordan in January) and the NJ seat (to which Mangi was nominated, but has faced serious resistance) go unfilled for Trump. Since time is running out my guess is that the democrats will try to fill both seats with uncontroversial district court judges, most likely Judge Hall (D. Del.) and Judge Farbiarz (D. N.J.)

There’s literally not enough time for new nominees - there’s this unspoken rule for nominees to wait 4 weeks for a judiciary committee hearing, then at least 2 weeks to get voted out of committee, and then who knows how long to get an actual floor vote. Schumer and Durbin aren’t going to break more norms now when they’re about to be in the minority for the next 4 years (there aren’t enough competitive seats for the Dems to regain control in ‘26).

Maybe there’s a slim chance that Cortez Masto/Rosen get over their opposition to Mangi now that the election’s over, but I wouldn’t count on it. The Jordan seat was also never going to be filled by this Congress b/c the vacancy doesn’t occur until the next Congress. More likely that Trump fills both seats and CA3 becomes like CA6—a slim Republican majority, but very conservative b/c all the Republicans are so far to the right.

Biden just nominated two judges for federal district court seats on Friday. It may be abnormal, but Trump nominated circuit judges after losing the election in 2020 as well. Perhaps it is unlikely, but given Trump's rhetoric about naming "fearless conservatives" to the bench, if the dems were smart they'd be more concerned about filling these seats than "norms."

[Anonymous User]

Did Trump lose in 2020? He disagrees.

[Anonymous User]

If the Democrats refuse to try to force nominees through into those seats they deserve to keep losing. It is beyond frustrating to see Mangi get blocked by right-wingers basically because he's brown and a Muslim, then have the Democrats play "norms" and "civility" softball anyway so they can watch Trump replace the seat with a VanDyke/Menashi hardliner. After the Garland/Gorsuch thing, they should have learned their lesson.

[Anonymous User]

having clerked on CA3, really think Biden would do the circuit a favor by putting up an ultra-smart liberal who knows the ins and outs of modern conservative legal theory and can like...feign moderate-ness

I say this thinking of judge Krause. when we sat with Judge Krause my year, she swung votes. numerous times. because she's really fucking smart and can talk to the Hardimans and Bibases in their language. when she was successful, it meant someone wasn't getting deported, or was getting a new trial, or a consequential case wasn't going en banc. it was incredibly impressive, and it "mattered" for the parties. like, case-by-case, she was making the world a better place for criminal defendants, undocumented immigrants, on panels w/GOP nominees

not all judges can do that. plenty on CA3 didn't! you'd read the dissents from certain reliable liberals and they were just completely outmatched. or well-written but arguing on consequentialist, non-legal grounds that a right-of-center judge just doesn't care about.

all that's to say, lot of liberal nominees recently---and not just on CA3---have seemed like they were picked b/c they represent some sort of advocacy/interest group that appeals to the loudest voices in the liberal legal community.

and there's a place for that

but on closely-divided circuits/panels, if those folks can only speak in their 2022 ACLU Voice, that's counterproductive. COA isn't SCOTUS---the litigants sometimes (usually?) have crappy arguments, and a high-quality COA judge can find better ones, and/or reframe them to appeal to an audience which isn't predisposed to agree with them.

and this isn't to say that a critical studies professor or Liberal Advocacy Org program director is incapable of doing that. but like, some of them definitely are not

and if you put that person a panel with a Matey and a Phipps in a close case, you're gonna lose 2-1. whereas, if it was Krause, and there's an interesting statutory interpretation issue, it might go 2-1 the other way.

just one person's view

This take on Krause is spot on: she has the respect of her colleagues, other circuit judges around the country (my D.C. Cir. judge loved her), and a lot of folks at DOJ civil appellate who appear before her (w/r/t her opinions, she's the fifth most-cited judge in other circuits and the only liberal in the top 10 in the last decade) (https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/ ... -concludes).

on forums like these and the legal accountability project, there is/are 1-2 clerks that repeatedly cast her in a negative light or say that the clerkship experience is "awful" or to "avoid at all costs." First, that take is contrary to the opinions of a vast majority of her clerks over the last 5-6 terms, who describe her as having high expectations and working hard, but heavily invested in their success and getting the law right. And second, it is an open secret (particularly in DC) who the 1-2 clerks are that continually try and sully her reputation and tell law schools not to send clerks to her. From their co-clerks' experiences, it sounds like there was an expectation mismatch for the clerkship and a personality clash.

just another person's view; take that for what it's worth. I'd take a year in Philly with Judge Krause (though she didn't hire me ).

[Anonymous User]

I agree with the above on Krause. There is a whole list of brilliant liberal judges that don't get the recognition they deserve because they don't feed. Another example would be Harris on 4th.

[Anonymous User]

Agree with all of the above—Krause is an incredible judge.

[Anonymous User]

Any info about Marston in EDPA?

[Anonymous User]

Anyone hear from Chung?

[Anonymous User]

Agree with all of the above—Krause is an incredible judge.

Well another Krause clerk quit so there's that...

[Anonymous User]

Is Judge Fuentes active?

[Anonymous User]

Is Judge Fuentes active?

Reasonably certain he's either retired or on inactive status, despite the FJC website listing him as senior. He hasn't hired and hasn't been calendared for sittings in over a year. I also know the spouse of one of his clerks, who referred to Fuentes having a "retirement party" a while back.

Unless I misremember, Stapleton (and perhaps Sloviter?) did the same thing: quietly dropped off calendars without an announcement.

[Anonymous User]

Is Judge Fuentes active?

Reasonably certain he's either retired or on inactive status, despite the FJC website listing him as senior. He hasn't hired and hasn't been calendared for sittings in over a year. I also know the spouse of one of his clerks, who referred to Fuentes having a "retirement party" a while back.

Unless I misremember, Stapleton (and perhaps Sloviter?) did the same thing: quietly dropped off calendars without an announcement.

Thanks for the heads up, I just couldn't find any trace of him doing anything for a while on Westlaw or PACER despite him apparently being active. Nice of him to wait to actually retire just until Trump can replace him with a Menashi/Walker-style hack.

[Anonymous User]

Is Judge Fuentes active?

Reasonably certain he's either retired or on inactive status, despite the FJC website listing him as senior. He hasn't hired and hasn't been calendared for sittings in over a year. I also know the spouse of one of his clerks, who referred to Fuentes having a "retirement party" a while back.

Unless I misremember, Stapleton (and perhaps Sloviter?) did the same thing: quietly dropped off calendars without an announcement.

Thanks for the heads up, I just couldn't find any trace of him doing anything for a while on Westlaw or PACER despite him apparently being active. Nice of him to wait to actually retire just until Trump can replace him with a Menashi/Walker-style hack.

??? He went senior close to a decade ago. Admittedly, the same criticism could be made back then, too. But he was replaced a long time ago.

[Anonymous User]

He's already in senior status, and his seat has already been filled by Judge Matey, so . . .

[Anonymous User]

I just heard that Freeman interviewed and hired a 3L.

[Anonymous User]

Reupping that he is obviously putting Habba on the Circuit to fill Greenaway's seat. The acting USA gig is just a stepping stone.

[RM_1292_99]

Anyone hear back from Shwartz for 27? Saw that she re-posted the same positions from a couple months ago. Must have seen my application among them and immediately placed the whole applicant bunch in the trash...