Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions Forum

[Anonymous User]

I don’t think this is fair. The Virginia senators forced Biden to pick Heytens by preempting his choice with a public shortlist on which the other names were obviously not viable candidates. The only other white men Biden has nominated to COAs are from states where there was likely no other option (NH, MT).

And while I have no interest in a blow-by-blow debate I think it’s obviously possible to identify picks where there’s a real tension between professional diversity (i.e. commitment to progressive litigation) and credentials on one hand and racial diversity on the other. Maybe Biden is making the right trade-off, like you suggest, but it seems silly to deny there’s a trade-off. Overall I have little beef with Biden on noms outside of Pan (I have no tolerance for judges who abuse clerks and she doesn’t even seem particularly progressive).

It's very fair. Nobody forced Biden to pick anybody. And the idea that there's no other option in NH or MT is ludicrous. I'm not defending every pick Biden has made or will make, but the complaining over this administration prioritizing diversity and the implication that it comes at the cost of quality is ridiculous. And I agree with you on Pan.

And no one being honest thinks Lee was more qualified than Feinerman.

Lee doesn't need to be more qualified than Feinerman to be qualified for the job. Neither party picks COA judges based on who is the most qualified for the job. Of course, you're undercutting OP's point, which was that Biden isn't picking Asian men (because they apparently aren't diverse enough).

Someone should go back and look at the confirmation hearings of people like Eunice Lee, who doesn’t know a single lick about CivPro, and tell me that diversity hasn’t been the preeminent factor in this administration’s judicial appointments. Yes, a handful of white and Asian men, after fighting tooth and nail and having major political connections, managed to get seats they were the expected choices for. But for most any other seat, the WH has made pretty explicitly clear that racial and gender diversity is the preeminent factor they’re looking for—even at the cost of basic qualifications and competence. There were noted scuffles with Dem Senators over CADC and CA1 seats in the last few months, and the WH basically said flat out that even a gay white man was insufficiently diverse.

Whether you think that position is justifiable is another matter entirely, but let’s not pretend we don’t know why some of these people—who otherwise don’t seem like particularly attractive candidates for these seats—are getting the nom.

Personally, I think they’re going to regret it. They should be appointing the youngest, liberal and best credentialed people they to match fedsoc. People like Josh Matz and Leah Litman, which is basically what fedsoc does: pick prominent young former scotus clerks and commentators. Brad Garcia was perhaps the only really good circuit nomination of Biden’s entire presidency.

Plenty of Biden’s nominees were conventional-wisdom favorites for their seats. Jackson, Cunningham, Robinson, Heytens, Koh, Stark, Nathan, Childs (though for DC not 4), Freeman, Montgomery-Reeves, Bloomekatz.

I also think there’s some revisionism there about Trump’s appointees. Lots were in their 50s and for every Bibas there was a “some guy”—e.g. he picked longtime-party-hack Steven Grasz over the sexy-young-Fed Soc-up and comer Jonathan Papik. Or can you tell me anything at all about David Porter? And in any case there are qualifications beyond SCOTUS clerkships and appellate practice.

[lavarman84]

LOL! Oh gosh, they're going to regret it. They just can't match FedSoc. Whatever will Democrats do to compete with the intellectual firepower of the chaps behind Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA or NetChoice v. Paxton. Don't nominate Black women. They just can't match up to that level brilliance. Yeah, okay.

[Anonymous User]

LOL! Oh gosh, they're going to regret it. They just can't match FedSoc. Whatever will Democrats do to compete with the intellectual firepower of the chaps behind Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA or NetChoice v. Paxton. Don't nominate Black women. They just can't match up to that level brilliance. Yeah, okay.

Mitchell and Mortara are clearly brilliant. The whole “conveniently none of my political enemies are smart” schtick is juvenile.

[Anonymous User]

LOL! Oh gosh, they're going to regret it. They just can't match FedSoc. Whatever will Democrats do to compete with the intellectual firepower of the chaps behind Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA or NetChoice v. Paxton. Don't nominate Black women. They just can't match up to that level brilliance. Yeah, okay.

Mitchell and Mortara are clearly brilliant. The whole “conveniently none of my political enemies are smart” schtick is juvenile.

This is a very ironic comment. It’s quite juvenile for Fed Soc warriors on here to say that Eunice Lee isn’t smart and imply that she’s only a federal judge because of her race, but I guess they’re the only ones who get to have it both ways.

[Anonymous User]

LOL! Oh gosh, they're going to regret it. They just can't match FedSoc. Whatever will Democrats do to compete with the intellectual firepower of the chaps behind Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA or NetChoice v. Paxton. Don't nominate Black women. They just can't match up to that level brilliance. Yeah, okay.

Mitchell and Mortara are clearly brilliant. The whole “conveniently none of my political enemies are smart” schtick is juvenile.

This is a very ironic comment. It’s quite juvenile for Fed Soc warriors on here to say that Eunice Lee isn’t smart and imply that she’s only a federal judge because of her race, but I guess they’re the only ones who get to have it both ways.

I’m not in Fed Soc, not every anon is the same person. Two wrongs don’t make a right, there are good lawyers of all political persuasions.

[throwawayt14]

LOL! Oh gosh, they're going to regret it. They just can't match FedSoc. Whatever will Democrats do to compete with the intellectual firepower of the chaps behind Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA or NetChoice v. Paxton. Don't nominate Black women. They just can't match up to that level brilliance. Yeah, okay.

Mitchell and Mortara are clearly brilliant. The whole “conveniently none of my political enemies are smart” schtick is juvenile.

This is a very ironic comment. It’s quite juvenile for Fed Soc warriors on here to say that Eunice Lee isn’t smart and imply that she’s only a federal judge because of her race, but I guess they’re the only ones who get to have it both ways.

I'm not a Fedsoc warrior, and mostly commented on the shame that Gary Feinerman never got to the circuit court level (or the Supreme Court - he'd easily be the equal of Kagan).

I didn't bring up Lee, but you don't have to have an agenda to accurately state that she was definitely not the most qualified person for the 2nd Circuit (Caitlin Halligan, who is about to be confirmed to the NY Court of Appeals is right there off the top of my head), and her confirmation hearing was embarrassing.

[lavarman84]

LOL! Oh gosh, they're going to regret it. They just can't match FedSoc. Whatever will Democrats do to compete with the intellectual firepower of the chaps behind Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA or NetChoice v. Paxton. Don't nominate Black women. They just can't match up to that level brilliance. Yeah, okay.

Mitchell and Mortara are clearly brilliant. The whole “conveniently none of my political enemies are smart” schtick is juvenile.

LOL. I was talking about the FedSoc "judges" who wrote the clownish opinions in these cases. Not sure how you miss that one.

[lavarman84]

I didn't bring up Lee, but you don't have to have an agenda to accurately state that she was definitely not the most qualified person for the 2nd Circuit (Caitlin Halligan, who is about to be confirmed to the NY Court of Appeals is right there off the top of my head), and her confirmation hearing was embarrassing.

You people sound naïve when you start up with this nonsense. Neither party picks the "most qualified person" to be judges. They pick people based on a combination of characteristics (ideology, age, qualifications, political connections, gender, ethnicity/race, etc.).

Yet, it sure is odd how certain people hyperfocus on who is the "most qualified" whenever it's people of color getting chosen. When the Republicans picked Amy Coney Barrett, how much talking did you do about who the most qualified person was for her seat on SCOTUS?

I'll at least give you props for not hiding behind an anon account like another poster is in this thread.

[Anonymous User]

I didn't bring up Lee, but you don't have to have an agenda to accurately state that she was definitely not the most qualified person for the 2nd Circuit (Caitlin Halligan, who is about to be confirmed to the NY Court of Appeals is right there off the top of my head), and her confirmation hearing was embarrassing.

You people sound naïve when you start up with this nonsense. Neither party picks the "most qualified person" to be judges. They pick people based on a combination of characteristics (ideology, age, qualifications, political connections, gender, ethnicity/race, etc.).

Yet, it sure is odd how certain people hyperfocus on who is the "most qualified" whenever it's people of color getting chosen. When the Republicans picked Amy Coney Barrett, how much talking did you do about who the most qualified person was for her seat on SCOTUS?

I'll at least give you props for not hiding behind an anon account like another poster is in this thread.

Agreed. At core this is all politics—and it has been for a while. Biden is choosing to emphasize diversity for political aims and deliver promises to constituencies that elected him, just as Trump literally did with the Fed Soc network. Both approaches probably prevent the judiciary from being staffed with (insert greatest judge of the generation), but, cynically, I don't think political appointments are about that.

[Anonymous User]

De Alba strikes me as a really strange pick for CA9; she’s a former midlaw employment lawyer? I wonder why e.g. Chhabria and Liu have been overlooked for all of the California spots

At least for Liu, he'd be taking a pay cut and going from a court of 7 to a court of 29 (plus many more seniors) that is more conservative. He already draws SCOTUS-caliber clerks, so why jump?

Perhaps Chhabria enjoys being a trial judge, but yeah, it would be very strange if he hadn't even been invited to interview. He would I believe be the first Indian-American appeals judge from California, which is the type of thing the Biden administration loves to highlight in its nomination press releases.

I sure hope the bolded is sarcasm.

He's fed three times (of course, always in conjunction with established feeders) and his non-SCOTUS alumni include many impressive young liberals. Yes, CA9 would offer him the opportunity to become a more significant feeder. But the point is that there are plenty of reasons for him to be thrilled with his current job.

Oh, I'm not questioning his clerks' credentials - I know they're SCOTUS-caliber. I was just laughing at the idea that a material reason to move to a COA would be to get really fancy clerks and since he does that already, why move? (Overall agree with you that he may not be interested, for the other reasons you give.)

I agree. It’s absurd to me to think any judge would so want to work with a series of high-grade twenty-five-year-olds as to let that inform whether he takes a new job

[Anonymous User]

I didn't bring up Lee, but you don't have to have an agenda to accurately state that she was definitely not the most qualified person for the 2nd Circuit (Caitlin Halligan, who is about to be confirmed to the NY Court of Appeals is right there off the top of my head), and her confirmation hearing was embarrassing.

You people sound naïve when you start up with this nonsense. Neither party picks the "most qualified person" to be judges. They pick people based on a combination of characteristics (ideology, age, qualifications, political connections, gender, ethnicity/race, etc.).

Yet, it sure is odd how certain people hyperfocus on who is the "most qualified" whenever it's people of color getting chosen. When the Republicans picked Amy Coney Barrett, how much talking did you do about who the most qualified person was for her seat on SCOTUS?

I'll at least give you props for not hiding behind an anon account like another poster is in this thread.

There has to be a difference between picking (1) someone who is smart and meets some base level of a qualifications, even if they’re picked for age or ideology or whatever and (2) someone who has never heard of the seventh amendment being picked because of the color of their skin. It’s just embarrassing how they’re prizing that over everything else—and it’s embarrassing how below minimal competency levels some of their nominees, like Eunice Lee, are. Have you no respect for the rule of law or the litigant who has to have their case decided in their court?

But nobody ever naively said Biden wasn’t entitled to pick whoever he wants for political reasons. He can pick a bag of rocks if he wants. The point is just this: Let’s just not play this game of “oh I wonder why this person got nominated by Biden.” In this administration, it’s most likely their race, let’s just call a spade a spade. And for some people, yes, picking someone based on their race is much ickier than picking someone based on age, ideology, or wacky views.

Not for nothing, I am not a fedsoc warrior and I despite Kacsmaryk and Mizelle and all of them too. I think their issues also make them poor choices and at times unfit for judicial service. Pardon me for “naively” hoping for qualified and serious judges—even if we all can recognize that’s not what we’re getting lately.

[lavarman84]

There has to be a difference between picking (1) someone who is smart and meets some base level of a qualifications, even if they’re picked for age or ideology or whatever and (2) someone who has never heard of the seventh amendment being picked because of the color of their skin. It’s just embarrassing how they’re prizing that over everything else—and it’s embarrassing how below minimal competency levels some of their nominees, like Eunice Lee, are. Have you no respect for the rule of law or the litigant who has to have their case decided in their court?

You're beclowning yourself by relentlessly attacking an accomplished Black woman. Eunice Lee graduated from Yale Law, clerked on on the Sixth Circuit, taught at NYU Law, and spent decades working as an appellate litigator. Those are very normal qualifications for a COA judge, except she worked as an appellate public defender instead of a prosecutor. And it's a good thing Biden is prioritizing people from the other side of the criminal legal system.

I couldn't care less about Lee's civil procedure knowledge at a Senate hearing. Appellate judging isn't like taking a bar exam. You have the benefit of briefing and the ability to thoroughly research issues. A smart person who spent their career practicing criminal law can easily familiarize themselves with civil procedure to meet the demands of a case. And Eunice Lee is a smart person.

But nobody ever naively said Biden wasn’t entitled to pick whoever he wants for political reasons. He can pick a bag of rocks if he wants. The point is just this: Let’s just not play this game of “oh I wonder why this person got nominated by Biden.” In this administration, it’s most likely their race, let’s just call a spade a spade. And for some people, yes, picking someone based on their race is much ickier than picking someone based on age, ideology, or wacky views.

Keep on ranting, Ilya Shapiro. Accomplished Black women don't deserve to be judges. We get it.

Not for nothing, I am not a fedsoc warrior and I despite Kacsmaryk and Mizelle and all of them too. I think their issues also make them poor choices and at times unfit for judicial service. Pardon me for “naively” hoping for qualified and serious judges—even if we all can recognize that’s not what we’re getting lately.

The fact that the person you've harped on as not a "qualified" judge is a Black woman who has a very traditional background for being a federal judge (except she worked on the defense side instead of the prosecution side of criminal law) really says it all what this is actually about.

[Anonymous User]

There has to be a difference between picking (1) someone who is smart and meets some base level of a qualifications, even if they’re picked for age or ideology or whatever and (2) someone who has never heard of the seventh amendment being picked because of the color of their skin. It’s just embarrassing how they’re prizing that over everything else—and it’s embarrassing how below minimal competency levels some of their nominees, like Eunice Lee, are. Have you no respect for the rule of law or the litigant who has to have their case decided in their court?

You're beclowning yourself by relentlessly attacking an accomplished Black woman. Eunice Lee graduated from Yale Law, clerked on on the Sixth Circuit, taught at NYU Law, and spent decades working as an appellate litigator. Those are very normal qualifications for a COA judge, except she worked as an appellate public defender instead of a prosecutor. And it's a good thing Biden is prioritizing people from the other side of the criminal legal system.

I couldn't care less about Lee's civil procedure knowledge at a Senate hearing. Appellate judging isn't like taking a bar exam. You have the benefit of briefing and the ability to thoroughly research issues. A smart person who spent their career practicing criminal law can easily familiarize themselves with civil procedure to meet the demands of a case. And Eunice Lee is a smart person.

But nobody ever naively said Biden wasn’t entitled to pick whoever he wants for political reasons. He can pick a bag of rocks if he wants. The point is just this: Let’s just not play this game of “oh I wonder why this person got nominated by Biden.” In this administration, it’s most likely their race, let’s just call a spade a spade. And for some people, yes, picking someone based on their race is much ickier than picking someone based on age, ideology, or wacky views.

Keep on ranting, Ilya Shapiro. Accomplished Black women don't deserve to be judges. We get it.

Not for nothing, I am not a fedsoc warrior and I despite Kacsmaryk and Mizelle and all of them too. I think their issues also make them poor choices and at times unfit for judicial service. Pardon me for “naively” hoping for qualified and serious judges—even if we all can recognize that’s not what we’re getting lately.

The fact that the person you've harped on as not a "qualified" judge is a Black woman who has a very traditional background for being a federal judge (except she worked on the defense side instead of the prosecution side of criminal law) really says it all what this is actually about.

Hmm, which former court of appeals judge couldn't name the five First Amendment freedoms? Was it Eunice Lee? This person sits on the Supreme Court now - was it Ketanji Brown Jackson?

No, it was this hack: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasre ... cc8d6e12ed

[lavarman84]

There has to be a difference between picking (1) someone who is smart and meets some base level of a qualifications, even if they’re picked for age or ideology or whatever and (2) someone who has never heard of the seventh amendment being picked because of the color of their skin. It’s just embarrassing how they’re prizing that over everything else—and it’s embarrassing how below minimal competency levels some of their nominees, like Eunice Lee, are. Have you no respect for the rule of law or the litigant who has to have their case decided in their court?

You're beclowning yourself by relentlessly attacking an accomplished Black woman. Eunice Lee graduated from Yale Law, clerked on on the Sixth Circuit, taught at NYU Law, and spent decades working as an appellate litigator. Those are very normal qualifications for a COA judge, except she worked as an appellate public defender instead of a prosecutor. And it's a good thing Biden is prioritizing people from the other side of the criminal legal system.

I couldn't care less about Lee's civil procedure knowledge at a Senate hearing. Appellate judging isn't like taking a bar exam. You have the benefit of briefing and the ability to thoroughly research issues. A smart person who spent their career practicing criminal law can easily familiarize themselves with civil procedure to meet the demands of a case. And Eunice Lee is a smart person.

But nobody ever naively said Biden wasn’t entitled to pick whoever he wants for political reasons. He can pick a bag of rocks if he wants. The point is just this: Let’s just not play this game of “oh I wonder why this person got nominated by Biden.” In this administration, it’s most likely their race, let’s just call a spade a spade. And for some people, yes, picking someone based on their race is much ickier than picking someone based on age, ideology, or wacky views.

Keep on ranting, Ilya Shapiro. Accomplished Black women don't deserve to be judges. We get it.

Not for nothing, I am not a fedsoc warrior and I despite Kacsmaryk and Mizelle and all of them too. I think their issues also make them poor choices and at times unfit for judicial service. Pardon me for “naively” hoping for qualified and serious judges—even if we all can recognize that’s not what we’re getting lately.

The fact that the person you've harped on as not a "qualified" judge is a Black woman who has a very traditional background for being a federal judge (except she worked on the defense side instead of the prosecution side of criminal law) really says it all what this is actually about.

Hmm, which former court of appeals judge couldn't name the five First Amendment freedoms? Was it Eunice Lee? This person sits on the Supreme Court now - was it Ketanji Brown Jackson?

No, it was this hack: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasre ... cc8d6e12ed

True. And I'm not going to sit here and say that Amy Coney Barrett is stupid or unqualified. The Senate hearings are political theater that do not remotely resemble the job of being an appellate judge. Any person who is drawing conclusions about a judge's aptitude based on how they answer questions at that sort of hearing isn't a serious person.

We'll have plenty of time to evaluate Eunice Lee's abilities as a jurist. But her credentials are very much in line with your typical COA judge (elite law school, prestigious clerkship, long-time appellate practitioner, adjunct professoring). But apparently, because she's a Black woman, she's taken something she doesn't deserve. Funny how certain folks said the same thing about KBJ.

[Anonymous User]

There has to be a difference between picking (1) someone who is smart and meets some base level of a qualifications, even if they’re picked for age or ideology or whatever and (2) someone who has never heard of the seventh amendment being picked because of the color of their skin. It’s just embarrassing how they’re prizing that over everything else—and it’s embarrassing how below minimal competency levels some of their nominees, like Eunice Lee, are. Have you no respect for the rule of law or the litigant who has to have their case decided in their court?

You're beclowning yourself by relentlessly attacking an accomplished Black woman. Eunice Lee graduated from Yale Law, clerked on on the Sixth Circuit, taught at NYU Law, and spent decades working as an appellate litigator. Those are very normal qualifications for a COA judge, except she worked as an appellate public defender instead of a prosecutor. And it's a good thing Biden is prioritizing people from the other side of the criminal legal system.

I couldn't care less about Lee's civil procedure knowledge at a Senate hearing. Appellate judging isn't like taking a bar exam. You have the benefit of briefing and the ability to thoroughly research issues. A smart person who spent their career practicing criminal law can easily familiarize themselves with civil procedure to meet the demands of a case. And Eunice Lee is a smart person.

But nobody ever naively said Biden wasn’t entitled to pick whoever he wants for political reasons. He can pick a bag of rocks if he wants. The point is just this: Let’s just not play this game of “oh I wonder why this person got nominated by Biden.” In this administration, it’s most likely their race, let’s just call a spade a spade. And for some people, yes, picking someone based on their race is much ickier than picking someone based on age, ideology, or wacky views.

Keep on ranting, Ilya Shapiro. Accomplished Black women don't deserve to be judges. We get it.

Not for nothing, I am not a fedsoc warrior and I despite Kacsmaryk and Mizelle and all of them too. I think their issues also make them poor choices and at times unfit for judicial service. Pardon me for “naively” hoping for qualified and serious judges—even if we all can recognize that’s not what we’re getting lately.

The fact that the person you've harped on as not a "qualified" judge is a Black woman who has a very traditional background for being a federal judge (except she worked on the defense side instead of the prosecution side of criminal law) really says it all what this is actually about.

Hmm, which former court of appeals judge couldn't name the five First Amendment freedoms? Was it Eunice Lee? This person sits on the Supreme Court now - was it Ketanji Brown Jackson?

No, it was this hack: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasre ... cc8d6e12ed

True. And I'm not going to sit here and say that Amy Coney Barrett is stupid or unqualified. The Senate hearings are political theater that do not remotely resemble the job of being an appellate judge. Any person who is drawing conclusions about a judge's aptitude based on how they answer questions at that sort of hearing isn't a serious person.

We'll have plenty of time to evaluate Eunice Lee's abilities as a jurist. But her credentials are very much in line with your typical COA judge (elite law school, prestigious clerkship, long-time appellate practitioner, adjunct professoring). But apparently, because she's a Black woman, she's taken something she doesn't deserve. Funny how certain folks said the same thing about KBJ.

Amen. The criticism here is just pathetic.

[Anonymous User]

TLS unscientific poll -- who is the best and worst Biden COA judge?

[Anonymous User]

Lee is the worst. Would have failed Civ Pro.

[Anonymous User]

Lee is the worst. Would have failed Civ Pro.

Yes, because Civ Pro is graded by a few on-the-spot questions during a hearing when you can literally be asked about any area of law. By this logic, Barrett is clearly the worst Trump nominee and would've failed Con Law - this is just racist trolling at this point.

To me, J. Michelle Childs is the most unusual/clearly political nominee for the position she holds. Unlike the poster above, I am NOT saying that she is unqualified or a bad judge because she's a Black woman - I think she would've made a lot of sense for the 4th Circuit. She just isn't what you usually see in terms of nominees to CADC, and it was pretty clear that the nomination was to appease Jim Clyburn.

Allison Nathan is probably the most conventional nominee out of all the Biden picks given her SCOTUS clerkship, White House Counsel's experience, etc. - in the unlikely chance that Biden gets a second SCOTUS nominee, I'd be surprised if it isn't her (though I could see them going with Pan or Koh for more diversity points).

In terms of best for Democrats/progressives/countering Fed Soc hacks, my personal favorites are Sung (labor lawyer), Perez/Desai (voting rights/election law), and H. Thomas (LDF/DOJ Civil Rights) given how few federal judges have their professional backgrounds.

[Anonymous User]

I don't know Lee's qualifications or jurisprudence personally, but to the extent that some people claim she is not qualified, if your evidence is solely based on the dumb pop quiz questions they give during nomination hearings I cannot take you seriously.

If you have something else to say, like shitty nonsensical concurrences that miss the issue, weird irrelevant questions during oral arguments, or literally anything else, I'm totally happy to hear those out in good faith and with an open mind.

[Anonymous User]

There has to be a difference between picking (1) someone who is smart and meets some base level of a qualifications, even if they’re picked for age or ideology or whatever and (2) someone who has never heard of the seventh amendment being picked because of the color of their skin. It’s just embarrassing how they’re prizing that over everything else—and it’s embarrassing how below minimal competency levels some of their nominees, like Eunice Lee, are. Have you no respect for the rule of law or the litigant who has to have their case decided in their court?

You're beclowning yourself by relentlessly attacking an accomplished Black woman. Eunice Lee graduated from Yale Law, clerked on on the Sixth Circuit, taught at NYU Law, and spent decades working as an appellate litigator. Those are very normal qualifications for a COA judge, except she worked as an appellate public defender instead of a prosecutor. And it's a good thing Biden is prioritizing people from the other side of the criminal legal system.

I couldn't care less about Lee's civil procedure knowledge at a Senate hearing. Appellate judging isn't like taking a bar exam. You have the benefit of briefing and the ability to thoroughly research issues. A smart person who spent their career practicing criminal law can easily familiarize themselves with civil procedure to meet the demands of a case. And Eunice Lee is a smart person.

But nobody ever naively said Biden wasn’t entitled to pick whoever he wants for political reasons. He can pick a bag of rocks if he wants. The point is just this: Let’s just not play this game of “oh I wonder why this person got nominated by Biden.” In this administration, it’s most likely their race, let’s just call a spade a spade. And for some people, yes, picking someone based on their race is much ickier than picking someone based on age, ideology, or wacky views.

Keep on ranting, Ilya Shapiro. Accomplished Black women don't deserve to be judges. We get it.

Not for nothing, I am not a fedsoc warrior and I despite Kacsmaryk and Mizelle and all of them too. I think their issues also make them poor choices and at times unfit for judicial service. Pardon me for “naively” hoping for qualified and serious judges—even if we all can recognize that’s not what we’re getting lately.

The fact that the person you've harped on as not a "qualified" judge is a Black woman who has a very traditional background for being a federal judge (except she worked on the defense side instead of the prosecution side of criminal law) really says it all what this is actually about.

Hmm, which former court of appeals judge couldn't name the five First Amendment freedoms? Was it Eunice Lee? This person sits on the Supreme Court now - was it Ketanji Brown Jackson?

No, it was this hack: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasre ... cc8d6e12ed

This is apparently a civics class thing in some areas of the country but I had literally never heard of it, and it’s not how lawyers conceptualize the amendment

Likewise Lee has a perfectly normal background

All of these args against judges’ qualifications are dumb and hacky. The Kennedy questions are funny, and can be revealing when they get really bad, but shouldn’t be taken too seriously.

[Anonymous User]

Rowan Wilson was a missed opportunity for a 2d Cir. seat. Intelligent, funny, super well credentialed and a veteran litigator. He will be a great NYCOA Chief Judge but he would have been a very solid pick for CA2

[throwawayt14]

Lee is the worst. Would have failed Civ Pro.

Yes, because Civ Pro is graded by a few on-the-spot questions during a hearing when you can literally be asked about any area of law. By this logic, Barrett is clearly the worst Trump nominee and would've failed Con Law - this is just racist trolling at this point.

To me, J. Michelle Childs is the most unusual/clearly political nominee for the position she holds. Unlike the poster above, I am NOT saying that she is unqualified or a bad judge because she's a Black woman - I think she would've made a lot of sense for the 4th Circuit. She just isn't what you usually see in terms of nominees to CADC, and it was pretty clear that the nomination was to appease Jim Clyburn.

Allison Nathan is probably the most conventional nominee out of all the Biden picks given her SCOTUS clerkship, White House Counsel's experience, etc. - in the unlikely chance that Biden gets a second SCOTUS nominee, I'd be surprised if it isn't her (though I could see them going with Pan or Koh for more diversity points).

In terms of best for Democrats/progressives/countering Fed Soc hacks, my personal favorites are Sung (labor lawyer), Perez/Desai (voting rights/election law), and H. Thomas (LDF/DOJ Civil Rights) given how few federal judges have their professional backgrounds.

Lee not knowing basic CivPro is a very bad look - failing similar questions took down a Trump nominee for starters. Nominees preparing for a lifetime appointment should be familiar with the basics of the job - even if confirmation hearings are largely a joke, it's the one time ever the American public gets to see the nominee, they should treat it seriously and study up. None of Cotton and Kennedy's questions were unfair or gotchas. And the vast majority of work COAs do is non-sexy, rote, basic work of checking motions and making sure the district court/EOIR checked all the boxes and crossed all their 't's. Not doing that work timely or properly gums up the works and hurts the average litigant far more than writing some crazy concurrence on a sexy Constitutional law case, and the judiciary is far better off focusing on the former instead of the latter.


Childs is a perfectly fine judge, and the DC Circuit has always been where personal friends of important politicians go. Nathan would be a great choice for any SCOTUS vacancy, immensely well respected and she works incredibly hard.

The odds Perez/Desai will ever hear an important election law case are fairly minimal, especially for Perez, and unless they moderate their approach, they are more likely to get the VRA struck down than anything else.

Rowan Wilson is ancient for a COA selection (he's 62 already) and was only picked because Hochul needed to pick a tried and true hack (and I don't use that term loosely) for her nominee. His dissent in the NY congressional district case was laughably bad.

[Anonymous User]

Lee is the worst. Would have failed Civ Pro.

Yes, because Civ Pro is graded by a few on-the-spot questions during a hearing when you can literally be asked about any area of law. By this logic, Barrett is clearly the worst Trump nominee and would've failed Con Law - this is just racist trolling at this point.

To me, J. Michelle Childs is the most unusual/clearly political nominee for the position she holds. Unlike the poster above, I am NOT saying that she is unqualified or a bad judge because she's a Black woman - I think she would've made a lot of sense for the 4th Circuit. She just isn't what you usually see in terms of nominees to CADC, and it was pretty clear that the nomination was to appease Jim Clyburn.

Allison Nathan is probably the most conventional nominee out of all the Biden picks given her SCOTUS clerkship, White House Counsel's experience, etc. - in the unlikely chance that Biden gets a second SCOTUS nominee, I'd be surprised if it isn't her (though I could see them going with Pan or Koh for more diversity points).

In terms of best for Democrats/progressives/countering Fed Soc hacks, my personal favorites are Sung (labor lawyer), Perez/Desai (voting rights/election law), and H. Thomas (LDF/DOJ Civil Rights) given how few federal judges have their professional backgrounds.

Lee not knowing basic CivPro is a very bad look - failing similar questions took down a Trump nominee for starters. Nominees preparing for a lifetime appointment should be familiar with the basics of the job - even if confirmation hearings are largely a joke, it's the one time ever the American public gets to see the nominee, they should treat it seriously and study up. None of Cotton and Kennedy's questions were unfair or gotchas. And the vast majority of work COAs do is non-sexy, rote, basic work of checking motions and making sure the district court/EOIR checked all the boxes and crossed all their 't's. Not doing that work timely or properly gums up the works and hurts the average litigant far more than writing some crazy concurrence on a sexy Constitutional law case, and the judiciary is far better off focusing on the former instead of the latter.


Childs is a perfectly fine judge, and the DC Circuit has always been where personal friends of important politicians go. Nathan would be a great choice for any SCOTUS vacancy, immensely well respected and she works incredibly hard.

The odds Perez/Desai will ever hear an important election law case are fairly minimal, especially for Perez, and unless they moderate their approach, they are more likely to get the VRA struck down than anything else.

Rowan Wilson is ancient for a COA selection (he's 62 already) and was only picked because Hochul needed to pick a tried and true hack (and I don't use that term loosely) for her nominee. His dissent in the NY congressional district case was laughably bad.

Spoken as someone who hasn’t spent their career in criminal law and has no idea what they don’t know in that area that every criminal practitioner knows, meaning they’d look equally “stupid” at a confirmation hearing. And of course Cotton and Kennedy were looking for gotchas, it’s the whole purpose of their existence. You actually think they were questioning her in good faith?

[throwawayt14]

Spoken as someone who hasn’t spent their career in criminal law and has no idea what they don’t know in that area that every criminal practitioner knows, meaning they’d look equally “stupid” at a confirmation hearing. And of course Cotton and Kennedy were looking for gotchas, it’s the whole purpose of their existence. You actually think they were questioning her in good faith?

Obviously, they were hoping that she'd screw up. Which she did. It's not unfair to ask a nominee the basics of civil cases - it's pretty important to the job. And even if she's spent her career working in criminal law, she has to handle civil cases, it's not an excuse for not being prepared.

Most nominees fly through questioning, we only hear about the ones that mess up very badly, indicating on some level, that yeah, most nominees, regardless of background, generally know this stuff.

[Anonymous User]

Spoken as someone who hasn’t spent their career in criminal law and has no idea what they don’t know in that area that every criminal practitioner knows, meaning they’d look equally “stupid” at a confirmation hearing. And of course Cotton and Kennedy were looking for gotchas, it’s the whole purpose of their existence. You actually think they were questioning her in good faith?

Obviously, they were hoping that she'd screw up. Which she did. It's not unfair to ask a nominee the basics of civil cases - it's pretty important to the job. And even if she's spent her career working in criminal law, she has to handle civil cases, it's not an excuse for not being prepared.

Most nominees fly through questioning, we only hear about the ones that mess up very badly, indicating on some level, that yeah, most nominees, regardless of background, generally know this stuff.

Strangely, the only people who think Lee screwed up badly are people who oppose her/Biden politically. I’ve been googling about the confirmation hearing and there’s almost nothing out there saying she screwed up. Saying that certain Republicans weren’t happy with her answers, sure, but no media circuses about her performance being somehow deficient. In fact, I’d never heard this criticism until this thread.