Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions Forum

(Seek and share information about clerkship applications, clerkship hiring timelines, and post-clerkship employment opportunities)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about clerkship applications and clerkship hiring. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
regardsjeremiah

New
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2023 11:57 pm

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by regardsjeremiah » Thu Apr 20, 2023 1:36 pm

I feel like this needs to be quoted again so I will.
I mean I usually would cut even randos on the internet some slack, but it’s harder in this case since the poster used the phrase while implying that any Biden COA nominee who isn’t white was picked because of their race.

I don’t think anyone is seriously disputing that this administration considers the personal backgrounds of their nominees, and yes race is part of that. But then they jump to “this person got the nomination just because she’s Black” when the nominees are well qualified and use a term with racial connotations — that’s what is “icky,” especially when the poster is saying that this is somehow worse than picking someone because of their age (also something the nominee has no control over). And on the same note, why is it not “icky” that Trump picked Barrett because she’s a woman?

Anonymous User
Posts: 427954
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Apr 20, 2023 1:43 pm

regardsjeremiah wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2023 1:36 pm
I feel like this needs to be quoted again so I will.
I mean I usually would cut even randos on the internet some slack, but it’s harder in this case since the poster used the phrase while implying that any Biden COA nominee who isn’t white was picked because of their race.

I don’t think anyone is seriously disputing that this administration considers the personal backgrounds of their nominees, and yes race is part of that. But then they jump to “this person got the nomination just because she’s Black” when the nominees are well qualified and use a term with racial connotations — that’s what is “icky,” especially when the poster is saying that this is somehow worse than picking someone because of their age (also something the nominee has no control over). And on the same note, why is it not “icky” that Trump picked Barrett because she’s a woman?
I think you are arguing in bad faith. I do not take that person to be asserting that Biden's nominees of color are terribly unqualified but being selected because of their race. Rather, I understand that person's argument to be that less qualified candidates are being selected because of their race. I think the distinction is important. The former argument is inane and racist and the latter is neither, IMO.

nixy

Gold
Posts: 4445
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 8:58 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by nixy » Thu Apr 20, 2023 1:55 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2023 1:43 pm
regardsjeremiah wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2023 1:36 pm
I feel like this needs to be quoted again so I will.
I mean I usually would cut even randos on the internet some slack, but it’s harder in this case since the poster used the phrase while implying that any Biden COA nominee who isn’t white was picked because of their race.

I don’t think anyone is seriously disputing that this administration considers the personal backgrounds of their nominees, and yes race is part of that. But then they jump to “this person got the nomination just because she’s Black” when the nominees are well qualified and use a term with racial connotations — that’s what is “icky,” especially when the poster is saying that this is somehow worse than picking someone because of their age (also something the nominee has no control over). And on the same note, why is it not “icky” that Trump picked Barrett because she’s a woman?
I think you are arguing in bad faith. I do not take that person to be asserting that Biden's nominees of color are terribly unqualified but being selected because of their race. Rather, I understand that person's argument to be that less qualified candidates are being selected because of their race. I think the distinction is important. The former argument is inane and racist and the latter is neither, IMO.
I mean the extensive discussion of Lee’s lack of familiarity with the 7th amendment isn’t helping you. But also, the distinction you’re making doesn’t hold up.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427954
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Apr 20, 2023 2:07 pm

nixy wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2023 1:55 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2023 1:43 pm
regardsjeremiah wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2023 1:36 pm
I feel like this needs to be quoted again so I will.
I mean I usually would cut even randos on the internet some slack, but it’s harder in this case since the poster used the phrase while implying that any Biden COA nominee who isn’t white was picked because of their race.

I don’t think anyone is seriously disputing that this administration considers the personal backgrounds of their nominees, and yes race is part of that. But then they jump to “this person got the nomination just because she’s Black” when the nominees are well qualified and use a term with racial connotations — that’s what is “icky,” especially when the poster is saying that this is somehow worse than picking someone because of their age (also something the nominee has no control over). And on the same note, why is it not “icky” that Trump picked Barrett because she’s a woman?
I think you are arguing in bad faith. I do not take that person to be asserting that Biden's nominees of color are terribly unqualified but being selected because of their race. Rather, I understand that person's argument to be that less qualified candidates are being selected because of their race. I think the distinction is important. The former argument is inane and racist and the latter is neither, IMO.
I mean the extensive discussion of Lee’s lack of familiarity with the 7th amendment isn’t helping you. But also, the distinction you’re making doesn’t hold up.
I am not arguing on behalf of the poster who is being criticized. I am arguing instead that his or her argument is being strawmanned.

That said, I am curious why the distinction doesn't hold up. A racist would argue that Biden's nominees of color have been unqualified and only being picked because of their race. That argument is of course not true, implausible, and almost certainly motivated by hate. I think it is eminently reasonable, however, to say that there are many qualified candidates for every vacancy, and Biden has prioritized picking those qualified candidates of color. And I think a subset of that reasonable argument recognizes that whether one is qualified is not a binary question, but exists on a spectrum, and that Biden is willing to take less-but-still-qualified candidates of color. When vocalized in the Ilya Shapiro way, it sounds and likely is racist. But I do not think the position is necessarily racist.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427954
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Apr 20, 2023 3:42 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2023 2:07 pm
nixy wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2023 1:55 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2023 1:43 pm
regardsjeremiah wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2023 1:36 pm
I feel like this needs to be quoted again so I will.
I mean I usually would cut even randos on the internet some slack, but it’s harder in this case since the poster used the phrase while implying that any Biden COA nominee who isn’t white was picked because of their race.

I don’t think anyone is seriously disputing that this administration considers the personal backgrounds of their nominees, and yes race is part of that. But then they jump to “this person got the nomination just because she’s Black” when the nominees are well qualified and use a term with racial connotations — that’s what is “icky,” especially when the poster is saying that this is somehow worse than picking someone because of their age (also something the nominee has no control over). And on the same note, why is it not “icky” that Trump picked Barrett because she’s a woman?
I think you are arguing in bad faith. I do not take that person to be asserting that Biden's nominees of color are terribly unqualified but being selected because of their race. Rather, I understand that person's argument to be that less qualified candidates are being selected because of their race. I think the distinction is important. The former argument is inane and racist and the latter is neither, IMO.
I mean the extensive discussion of Lee’s lack of familiarity with the 7th amendment isn’t helping you. But also, the distinction you’re making doesn’t hold up.
I am not arguing on behalf of the poster who is being criticized. I am arguing instead that his or her argument is being strawmanned.

That said, I am curious why the distinction doesn't hold up. A racist would argue that Biden's nominees of color have been unqualified and only being picked because of their race. That argument is of course not true, implausible, and almost certainly motivated by hate. I think it is eminently reasonable, however, to say that there are many qualified candidates for every vacancy, and Biden has prioritized picking those qualified candidates of color. And I think a subset of that reasonable argument recognizes that whether one is qualified is not a binary question, but exists on a spectrum, and that Biden is willing to take less-but-still-qualified candidates of color. When vocalized in the Ilya Shapiro way, it sounds and likely is racist. But I do not think the position is necessarily racist.
What does "less qualified" mean though? Still unclear why Eunice Lee would be considered less qualified.

Want to continue reading?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Absolutely FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 427954
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Apr 20, 2023 4:42 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2023 3:42 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2023 2:07 pm
nixy wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2023 1:55 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2023 1:43 pm
regardsjeremiah wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2023 1:36 pm
I feel like this needs to be quoted again so I will.
I mean I usually would cut even randos on the internet some slack, but it’s harder in this case since the poster used the phrase while implying that any Biden COA nominee who isn’t white was picked because of their race.

I don’t think anyone is seriously disputing that this administration considers the personal backgrounds of their nominees, and yes race is part of that. But then they jump to “this person got the nomination just because she’s Black” when the nominees are well qualified and use a term with racial connotations — that’s what is “icky,” especially when the poster is saying that this is somehow worse than picking someone because of their age (also something the nominee has no control over). And on the same note, why is it not “icky” that Trump picked Barrett because she’s a woman?
I think you are arguing in bad faith. I do not take that person to be asserting that Biden's nominees of color are terribly unqualified but being selected because of their race. Rather, I understand that person's argument to be that less qualified candidates are being selected because of their race. I think the distinction is important. The former argument is inane and racist and the latter is neither, IMO.
I mean the extensive discussion of Lee’s lack of familiarity with the 7th amendment isn’t helping you. But also, the distinction you’re making doesn’t hold up.
I am not arguing on behalf of the poster who is being criticized. I am arguing instead that his or her argument is being strawmanned.

That said, I am curious why the distinction doesn't hold up. A racist would argue that Biden's nominees of color have been unqualified and only being picked because of their race. That argument is of course not true, implausible, and almost certainly motivated by hate. I think it is eminently reasonable, however, to say that there are many qualified candidates for every vacancy, and Biden has prioritized picking those qualified candidates of color. And I think a subset of that reasonable argument recognizes that whether one is qualified is not a binary question, but exists on a spectrum, and that Biden is willing to take less-but-still-qualified candidates of color. When vocalized in the Ilya Shapiro way, it sounds and likely is racist. But I do not think the position is necessarily racist.
What does "less qualified" mean though? Still unclear why Eunice Lee would be considered less qualified.
Again, not defending said poster, as I frankly do not know who Eunice Lee is. I just glanced at her wikipedia and she looks eminently qualified. I hope to have 1/3 as amazing a career as she had before donning the robes.

Now, responding to your question. I think the argument begins by supposing that there is a minimum threshold that renders one fit to be a judge. A great candidate is far above that line and a merely acceptable candidate is just above it. So I think if Biden picks a candidate of color juuuust above that line over a white candidate who is well above it, he will have picked a qualified but less stellar candidate. I would understand a merits-based argument against such a practice, though I think there is absolutely a place for such an approach (representation matters). My broader point was that, unless I am misreading something, people were miscasting a poster's argument as racist when I do not think it necessarily is.

lavarman84

Platinum
Posts: 8501
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by lavarman84 » Thu Apr 20, 2023 5:49 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2023 4:42 pm
Again, not defending said poster, as I frankly do not know who Eunice Lee is. I just glanced at her wikipedia and she looks eminently qualified. I hope to have 1/3 as amazing a career as she had before donning the robes.

Now, responding to your question. I think the argument begins by supposing that there is a minimum threshold that renders one fit to be a judge. A great candidate is far above that line and a merely acceptable candidate is just above it. So I think if Biden picks a candidate of color juuuust above that line over a white candidate who is well above it, he will have picked a qualified but less stellar candidate. I would understand a merits-based argument against such a practice, though I think there is absolutely a place for such an approach (representation matters). My broader point was that, unless I am misreading something, people were miscasting a poster's argument as racist when I do not think it necessarily is.
Except for the fact that the poster whose argument you are defending specifically invoked Eunice Lee, a person you just called eminently qualified, as the example and repeatedly doubled down on that example.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427954
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Thu Apr 20, 2023 11:30 pm

lavarman84 wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2023 5:49 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2023 4:42 pm
Again, not defending said poster, as I frankly do not know who Eunice Lee is. I just glanced at her wikipedia and she looks eminently qualified. I hope to have 1/3 as amazing a career as she had before donning the robes.

Now, responding to your question. I think the argument begins by supposing that there is a minimum threshold that renders one fit to be a judge. A great candidate is far above that line and a merely acceptable candidate is just above it. So I think if Biden picks a candidate of color juuuust above that line over a white candidate who is well above it, he will have picked a qualified but less stellar candidate. I would understand a merits-based argument against such a practice, though I think there is absolutely a place for such an approach (representation matters). My broader point was that, unless I am misreading something, people were miscasting a poster's argument as racist when I do not think it necessarily is.
Except for the fact that the poster whose argument you are defending specifically invoked Eunice Lee, a person you just called eminently qualified, as the example and repeatedly doubled down on that example.
Then that poster is stupid and maybe racist.

lavarman84

Platinum
Posts: 8501
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by lavarman84 » Fri Apr 21, 2023 12:48 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Thu Apr 20, 2023 11:30 pm
Then that poster is stupid and maybe racist.
Agreed.

Want to continue reading?

Register for access!

Did I mention it was FREE ?


Anonymous User
Posts: 427954
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Sat Apr 29, 2023 12:32 pm

deleted

Anonymous User
Posts: 427954
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Mon May 08, 2023 1:53 pm

Anyone have any idea what is going on in the Tenth with their vacancy?

Anonymous User
Posts: 427954
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Mon May 08, 2023 11:10 pm

I don't know why Jabari Wamble's nomination to the Tenth Circuit failed, but it did. So the president nominated him to D. Kan. Now the Kansas senators are using blue slips on the District Court seat to try and influence the COA nomination.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/bloombergl ... VUHC000000

Anonymous User
Posts: 427954
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Wed May 10, 2023 11:25 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Mon May 08, 2023 11:10 pm
I don't know why Jabari Wamble's nomination to the Tenth Circuit failed, but it did. So the president nominated him to D. Kan. Now the Kansas senators are using blue slips on the District Court seat to try and influence the COA nomination.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/bloombergl ... VUHC000000
Thank you for the information. I should clarify as I am aware they nominated Wamble originally for the open Tenth Circuit seat; and I heard some mumblings on twitter that when his nomination expired, it made more sense based on his background and interests to nominate him to be a district court judge as opposed to appellate. And I am not sure how much leverage the Kansas senators have to influence a COA nomination since Biden can just say well if you don't want him on the district court we can just put him on the COA without your input; so Biden has some leverage in a way.

I am just curious what is taking so long to find/nominate someone else already for the Tenth. Maybe the Senate thinks filling the Tenth Circuit vacancy isn't a high priority because of the lower caseload.

Register now!

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

It's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 427954
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Wed May 10, 2023 9:49 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed May 10, 2023 11:25 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Mon May 08, 2023 11:10 pm
I don't know why Jabari Wamble's nomination to the Tenth Circuit failed, but it did. So the president nominated him to D. Kan. Now the Kansas senators are using blue slips on the District Court seat to try and influence the COA nomination.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/bloombergl ... VUHC000000
Thank you for the information. I should clarify as I am aware they nominated Wamble originally for the open Tenth Circuit seat; and I heard some mumblings on twitter that when his nomination expired, it made more sense based on his background and interests to nominate him to be a district court judge as opposed to appellate. And I am not sure how much leverage the Kansas senators have to influence a COA nomination since Biden can just say well if you don't want him on the district court we can just put him on the COA without your input; so Biden has some leverage in a way.

I am just curious what is taking so long to find/nominate someone else already for the Tenth. Maybe the Senate thinks filling the Tenth Circuit vacancy isn't a high priority because of the lower caseload.
I have no insider knowledge on this. But I don't think Biden has a ton of leverage. It seems like his options are:
1. Put Wamble on the Tenth and maybe get a stonewall on the blue slips until there's a R in the White House. That's probably not super appetizing when the reward is a COA judge with an appellate background somewhere between minimal and non-existent.
2. Find somebody else for the Tenth whom the Kansas delegation won't sign off on and take the L on the District Court.
3. Find somebody for the Tenth who's far right enough to get the blue slips returned.
From the outside, it looks like Biden misplayed his hand.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427954
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Wed May 10, 2023 10:41 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed May 10, 2023 9:49 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed May 10, 2023 11:25 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Mon May 08, 2023 11:10 pm
I don't know why Jabari Wamble's nomination to the Tenth Circuit failed, but it did. So the president nominated him to D. Kan. Now the Kansas senators are using blue slips on the District Court seat to try and influence the COA nomination.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/bloombergl ... VUHC000000
Thank you for the information. I should clarify as I am aware they nominated Wamble originally for the open Tenth Circuit seat; and I heard some mumblings on twitter that when his nomination expired, it made more sense based on his background and interests to nominate him to be a district court judge as opposed to appellate. And I am not sure how much leverage the Kansas senators have to influence a COA nomination since Biden can just say well if you don't want him on the district court we can just put him on the COA without your input; so Biden has some leverage in a way.

I am just curious what is taking so long to find/nominate someone else already for the Tenth. Maybe the Senate thinks filling the Tenth Circuit vacancy isn't a high priority because of the lower caseload.
I have no insider knowledge on this. But I don't think Biden has a ton of leverage. It seems like his options are:
1. Put Wamble on the Tenth and maybe get a stonewall on the blue slips until there's a R in the White House. That's probably not super appetizing when the reward is a COA judge with an appellate background somewhere between minimal and non-existent.
2. Find somebody else for the Tenth whom the Kansas delegation won't sign off on and take the L on the District Court.
3. Find somebody for the Tenth who's far right enough to get the blue slips returned.
From the outside, it looks like Biden misplayed his hand.
Yeah I agree that Biden’s decision to withdraw Wamble’s nomination to CA10 (where blue slips aren’t required) and instead nominate him to the district court (where blue slips are still in force) makes no sense - maybe the Kansas senators pulled a fast one on the administration by suggesting they might return blue slips on Wamble and then changing their minds? Though it’s definitely the administration’s own fault for trusting the likes of Marshall in particular.

I have no inside knowledge either, but it seems like a waste of time to even negotiate with Moran/Marshall. Biden has nominated multiple appellate nominees without Republican senators’ blue slips (including Andre Mathis over both TN senators’ objections), so I’m not sure why the KS senators are getting more deference. A district court vacancy or two in Kansas hardly seems worth risking this CA10 seat flipping to the Republicans if Dems lose the presidency or senate in 2024. If they had just kept Wamble for the CA10 vacancy, he would’ve at least gotten through the judiciary committee by now (or will soon now that Feinstein is back).

Anonymous User
Posts: 427954
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Wed May 10, 2023 11:38 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed May 10, 2023 10:41 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed May 10, 2023 9:49 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed May 10, 2023 11:25 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Mon May 08, 2023 11:10 pm
I don't know why Jabari Wamble's nomination to the Tenth Circuit failed, but it did. So the president nominated him to D. Kan. Now the Kansas senators are using blue slips on the District Court seat to try and influence the COA nomination.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/bloombergl ... VUHC000000
Thank you for the information. I should clarify as I am aware they nominated Wamble originally for the open Tenth Circuit seat; and I heard some mumblings on twitter that when his nomination expired, it made more sense based on his background and interests to nominate him to be a district court judge as opposed to appellate. And I am not sure how much leverage the Kansas senators have to influence a COA nomination since Biden can just say well if you don't want him on the district court we can just put him on the COA without your input; so Biden has some leverage in a way.

I am just curious what is taking so long to find/nominate someone else already for the Tenth. Maybe the Senate thinks filling the Tenth Circuit vacancy isn't a high priority because of the lower caseload.
I have no insider knowledge on this. But I don't think Biden has a ton of leverage. It seems like his options are:
1. Put Wamble on the Tenth and maybe get a stonewall on the blue slips until there's a R in the White House. That's probably not super appetizing when the reward is a COA judge with an appellate background somewhere between minimal and non-existent.
2. Find somebody else for the Tenth whom the Kansas delegation won't sign off on and take the L on the District Court.
3. Find somebody for the Tenth who's far right enough to get the blue slips returned.
From the outside, it looks like Biden misplayed his hand.
Yeah I agree that Biden’s decision to withdraw Wamble’s nomination to CA10 (where blue slips aren’t required) and instead nominate him to the district court (where blue slips are still in force) makes no sense - maybe the Kansas senators pulled a fast one on the administration by suggesting they might return blue slips on Wamble and then changing their minds? Though it’s definitely the administration’s own fault for trusting the likes of Marshall in particular.

I have no inside knowledge either, but it seems like a waste of time to even negotiate with Moran/Marshall. Biden has nominated multiple appellate nominees without Republican senators’ blue slips (including Andre Mathis over both TN senators’ objections), so I’m not sure why the KS senators are getting more deference. A district court vacancy or two in Kansas hardly seems worth risking this CA10 seat flipping to the Republicans if Dems lose the presidency or senate in 2024. If they had just kept Wamble for the CA10 vacancy, he would’ve at least gotten through the judiciary committee by now (or will soon now that Feinstein is back).
Just end the blue slip deference for district judges already. It's time.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427954
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Thu May 11, 2023 7:51 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed May 10, 2023 10:41 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed May 10, 2023 9:49 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed May 10, 2023 11:25 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Mon May 08, 2023 11:10 pm
I don't know why Jabari Wamble's nomination to the Tenth Circuit failed, but it did. So the president nominated him to D. Kan. Now the Kansas senators are using blue slips on the District Court seat to try and influence the COA nomination.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/bloombergl ... VUHC000000
Thank you for the information. I should clarify as I am aware they nominated Wamble originally for the open Tenth Circuit seat; and I heard some mumblings on twitter that when his nomination expired, it made more sense based on his background and interests to nominate him to be a district court judge as opposed to appellate. And I am not sure how much leverage the Kansas senators have to influence a COA nomination since Biden can just say well if you don't want him on the district court we can just put him on the COA without your input; so Biden has some leverage in a way.

I am just curious what is taking so long to find/nominate someone else already for the Tenth. Maybe the Senate thinks filling the Tenth Circuit vacancy isn't a high priority because of the lower caseload.
I have no insider knowledge on this. But I don't think Biden has a ton of leverage. It seems like his options are:
1. Put Wamble on the Tenth and maybe get a stonewall on the blue slips until there's a R in the White House. That's probably not super appetizing when the reward is a COA judge with an appellate background somewhere between minimal and non-existent.
2. Find somebody else for the Tenth whom the Kansas delegation won't sign off on and take the L on the District Court.
3. Find somebody for the Tenth who's far right enough to get the blue slips returned.
From the outside, it looks like Biden misplayed his hand.
Yeah I agree that Biden’s decision to withdraw Wamble’s nomination to CA10 (where blue slips aren’t required) and instead nominate him to the district court (where blue slips are still in force) makes no sense - maybe the Kansas senators pulled a fast one on the administration by suggesting they might return blue slips on Wamble and then changing their minds? Though it’s definitely the administration’s own fault for trusting the likes of Marshall in particular.

I have no inside knowledge either, but it seems like a waste of time to even negotiate with Moran/Marshall. Biden has nominated multiple appellate nominees without Republican senators’ blue slips (including Andre Mathis over both TN senators’ objections), so I’m not sure why the KS senators are getting more deference. A district court vacancy or two in Kansas hardly seems worth risking this CA10 seat flipping to the Republicans if Dems lose the presidency or senate in 2024. If they had just kept Wamble for the CA10 vacancy, he would’ve at least gotten through the judiciary committee by now (or will soon now that Feinstein is back).
I'm sure the theory was that Biden would get blue slips to fill the district court seat in return for being nice to them on the CA10 seat, but that doesn't seem to have worked out.

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics

Register now!

I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...


Anonymous User
Posts: 427954
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Thu May 11, 2023 7:58 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Wed May 10, 2023 11:38 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed May 10, 2023 10:41 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed May 10, 2023 9:49 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Wed May 10, 2023 11:25 am
Anonymous User wrote:
Mon May 08, 2023 11:10 pm
I don't know why Jabari Wamble's nomination to the Tenth Circuit failed, but it did. So the president nominated him to D. Kan. Now the Kansas senators are using blue slips on the District Court seat to try and influence the COA nomination.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/bloombergl ... VUHC000000
Thank you for the information. I should clarify as I am aware they nominated Wamble originally for the open Tenth Circuit seat; and I heard some mumblings on twitter that when his nomination expired, it made more sense based on his background and interests to nominate him to be a district court judge as opposed to appellate. And I am not sure how much leverage the Kansas senators have to influence a COA nomination since Biden can just say well if you don't want him on the district court we can just put him on the COA without your input; so Biden has some leverage in a way.

I am just curious what is taking so long to find/nominate someone else already for the Tenth. Maybe the Senate thinks filling the Tenth Circuit vacancy isn't a high priority because of the lower caseload.
I have no insider knowledge on this. But I don't think Biden has a ton of leverage. It seems like his options are:
1. Put Wamble on the Tenth and maybe get a stonewall on the blue slips until there's a R in the White House. That's probably not super appetizing when the reward is a COA judge with an appellate background somewhere between minimal and non-existent.
2. Find somebody else for the Tenth whom the Kansas delegation won't sign off on and take the L on the District Court.
3. Find somebody for the Tenth who's far right enough to get the blue slips returned.
From the outside, it looks like Biden misplayed his hand.
Yeah I agree that Biden’s decision to withdraw Wamble’s nomination to CA10 (where blue slips aren’t required) and instead nominate him to the district court (where blue slips are still in force) makes no sense - maybe the Kansas senators pulled a fast one on the administration by suggesting they might return blue slips on Wamble and then changing their minds? Though it’s definitely the administration’s own fault for trusting the likes of Marshall in particular.

I have no inside knowledge either, but it seems like a waste of time to even negotiate with Moran/Marshall. Biden has nominated multiple appellate nominees without Republican senators’ blue slips (including Andre Mathis over both TN senators’ objections), so I’m not sure why the KS senators are getting more deference. A district court vacancy or two in Kansas hardly seems worth risking this CA10 seat flipping to the Republicans if Dems lose the presidency or senate in 2024. If they had just kept Wamble for the CA10 vacancy, he would’ve at least gotten through the judiciary committee by now (or will soon now that Feinstein is back).
Just end the blue slip deference for district judges already. It's time.
Bad idea, (1) iirc the math and geography are such that it will benefit the GOP in the long run and (2) getting rid of the filibuster has clearly hurt the federal judiciary and getting rid of blue slips will do more of the same

Anonymous User
Posts: 427954
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Jun 04, 2023 1:02 pm

Biden nominating a literal 60 yr old in Ramirez for 5th Circ....are we serious rn?

No doubt she's qualified but why shoot yourself in the foot like this?

lavarman84

Platinum
Posts: 8501
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by lavarman84 » Sun Jun 04, 2023 4:27 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Jun 04, 2023 1:02 pm
Biden nominating a literal 60 yr old in Ramirez for 5th Circ....are we serious rn?

No doubt she's qualified but why shoot yourself in the foot like this?
Unless this was part of a deal to get Cornyn and Cruz to agree to a bunch of district judges, it's a bad pick.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427954
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Sun Jun 04, 2023 5:06 pm

lavarman84 wrote:
Sun Jun 04, 2023 4:27 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Sun Jun 04, 2023 1:02 pm
Biden nominating a literal 60 yr old in Ramirez for 5th Circ....are we serious rn?

No doubt she's qualified but why shoot yourself in the foot like this?
Unless this was part of a deal to get Cornyn and Cruz to agree to a bunch of district judges, it's a bad pick.
Good point - but I don't even think Biden has nominated any D.Ct. judges for Texas yet...though could be some backroom deal in advance of nominees, but that's kind of weird.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.

Register now, it's still FREE!


Anonymous User
Posts: 427954
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Jun 12, 2023 11:09 am

Any word on if Chief Judge Gregory (CA4) is going senior sometime this summer? Might just be reading tea leaves, but his term as chief ends in July and it looks on OSCAR like he's only taking 3 term clerks for 2024 vs. the usual 4 for active judges. Curious who potential VA replacements would be---CA4 is so closely divided ideologically as is and already has one MD vacancy.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427954
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Jun 12, 2023 11:15 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2023 11:09 am
Any word on if Chief Judge Gregory (CA4) is going senior sometime this summer? Might just be reading tea leaves, but his term as chief ends in July and it looks on OSCAR like he's only taking 3 term clerks for 2024 vs. the usual 4 for active judges. Curious who potential VA replacements would be---CA4 is so closely divided ideologically as is and already has one MD vacancy.
Given that he said there are 4 openings for 2025-26, I'm guessing the 3 for 2024-25 is because he's already hired one.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427954
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Jun 12, 2023 2:04 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2023 11:09 am
Any word on if Chief Judge Gregory (CA4) is going senior sometime this summer? Might just be reading tea leaves, but his term as chief ends in July and it looks on OSCAR like he's only taking 3 term clerks for 2024 vs. the usual 4 for active judges. Curious who potential VA replacements would be---CA4 is so closely divided ideologically as is and already has one MD vacancy.
8-6 (or 9-6 with the MD vacancy filled) is closely divided? Lol.

Anonymous User
Posts: 427954
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions

Post by Anonymous User » Mon Jun 12, 2023 2:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2023 2:04 pm
Anonymous User wrote:
Mon Jun 12, 2023 11:09 am
Any word on if Chief Judge Gregory (CA4) is going senior sometime this summer? Might just be reading tea leaves, but his term as chief ends in July and it looks on OSCAR like he's only taking 3 term clerks for 2024 vs. the usual 4 for active judges. Curious who potential VA replacements would be---CA4 is so closely divided ideologically as is and already has one MD vacancy.
8-6 (or 9-6 with the MD vacancy filled) is closely divided? Lol.
Given the incompetence of the new White House Counsel (see the Ramirez nomination to CA5 and the slow pace of nominations in general this year) and the fact that the MD vacancy wasn’t filled before the midterms when Klain/Remus were still around, I wouldn’t be surprised if the MD seat is left open until 2025 and flips R as a result. That would leave CA4 split 8-7, so yes Gregory’s seat may well tip the balance if he goes senior too late and Old Man Joe fails to get it together / nominate a decent replacement.

Seriously? What are you waiting for?

Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!


Post Reply Post Anonymous Reply  

Return to “Judicial Clerkships”