Biden Judicial Nominees Predictions Forum

[Anonymous User]

Any thoughts on who he may nominate for the Carney 2d cir seat? Seems to me that should be in the works soon…

I know as little as you do, but I would guess Raheem Mullins on SCOCT. He's young (43) and diverse, and Carney's seat (unlike Cabranes's) is definitely a CT seat. I'd personally prefer they pick someone with a more progressive background since Mullins was a prosecutor before becoming a judge (especially Omar Williams on D. Conn.), but I'd be surprised if they elevated any of the recent district court appointees so soon.

I was thinking a YLS prof, like Heather Gerken or Cristina Rodriguez. Both brilliant, and while I am thoroughly pleased with the Biden COA noms, we need some profs in the mix. Also fits the trend with Cabranes, Carney, Calabresi with YLS ties.

[Anonymous User]

Clyburn got Childs a DC Circuit spot, wow. Wouldn't be surprised to see her get Breyer's seat now.

Any info on what Childs is like as a judge? Just seems like a favor to Clyburn (albeit well-deserved).

[Skool]

Any thoughts on who he may nominate for the Carney 2d cir seat? Seems to me that should be in the works soon…

I know as little as you do, but I would guess Raheem Mullins on SCOCT. He's young (43) and diverse, and Carney's seat (unlike Cabranes's) is definitely a CT seat. I'd personally prefer they pick someone with a more progressive background since Mullins was a prosecutor before becoming a judge (especially Omar Williams on D. Conn.), but I'd be surprised if they elevated any of the recent district court appointees so soon.

I was thinking a YLS prof, like Heather Gerken or Cristina Rodriguez. Both brilliant, and while I am thoroughly pleased with the Biden COA noms, we need some profs in the mix. Also fits the trend with Cabranes, Carney, Calabresi with YLS ties.

This is the kind of thing that only a law student would post. Yes, the federal judiciary “NEEDS” the lady who can’t control the tiger mom and her husband.

Who gives a shit about “brilliant.” Being brilliant is neither necessary nor sufficient for good judging. Would much rather have people like Nathan and Robinson who have a lot of experience with what can go right and what can go wrong litigating a case from soup to nuts in a federal trial court. Just look at Judge Nathan’s experience this week in the Maxwell case. Granting a new trial in a matter like that is very, very tricky, and needs to consider not just abstract concepts rooted in the 6th Amendment, but also the realities of trying a long delayed high profile matter in year 2-3 of a global pandemic. Would love to see more trial judges and trial lawyers elevated.

[Anonymous User]

Any thoughts on who he may nominate for the Carney 2d cir seat? Seems to me that should be in the works soon…

I know as little as you do, but I would guess Raheem Mullins on SCOCT. He's young (43) and diverse, and Carney's seat (unlike Cabranes's) is definitely a CT seat. I'd personally prefer they pick someone with a more progressive background since Mullins was a prosecutor before becoming a judge (especially Omar Williams on D. Conn.), but I'd be surprised if they elevated any of the recent district court appointees so soon.

I was thinking a YLS prof, like Heather Gerken or Cristina Rodriguez. Both brilliant, and while I am thoroughly pleased with the Biden COA noms, we need some profs in the mix. Also fits the trend with Cabranes, Carney, Calabresi with YLS ties.

Gerken's senate hearing would literally be must must television. The downside is that I would have to hear about Yale drama more than i already do on Twitter.

[lavarman84]

This is the kind of thing that only a law student would post. Yes, the federal judiciary “NEEDS” the lady who can’t control the tiger mom and her husband.

Who gives a shit about “brilliant.” Being brilliant is neither necessary nor sufficient for good judging. Would much rather have people like Nathan and Robinson who have a lot of experience with what can go right and what can go wrong litigating a case from soup to nuts in a federal trial court. Just look at Judge Nathan’s experience this week in the Maxwell case. Granting a new trial in a matter like that is very, very tricky, and needs to consider not just abstract concepts rooted in the 6th Amendment, but also the realities of trying a long delayed high profile matter in year 2-3 of a global pandemic. Would love to see more trial judges and trial lawyers elevated.

Controlling egotistical law professors isn't exactly part of the job description of a COA judge. And I definitely give a shit about "brilliant." Having academics on the COA isn't an issue. I think we all benefit from a diversity of experiences there. I like that Biden is nominating a lot more people with civil rights and criminal defense backgrounds. There are far too many former prosecutors on the bench, and it has led to some massive blind spots.

[Anonymous User]

Any thoughts on who he may nominate for the Carney 2d cir seat? Seems to me that should be in the works soon…

I know as little as you do, but I would guess Raheem Mullins on SCOCT. He's young (43) and diverse, and Carney's seat (unlike Cabranes's) is definitely a CT seat. I'd personally prefer they pick someone with a more progressive background since Mullins was a prosecutor before becoming a judge (especially Omar Williams on D. Conn.), but I'd be surprised if they elevated any of the recent district court appointees so soon.

I was thinking a YLS prof, like Heather Gerken or Cristina Rodriguez. Both brilliant, and while I am thoroughly pleased with the Biden COA noms, we need some profs in the mix. Also fits the trend with Cabranes, Carney, Calabresi with YLS ties.

This is the kind of thing that only a law student would post. Yes, the federal judiciary “NEEDS” the lady who can’t control the tiger mom and her husband.

Who gives a shit about “brilliant.” Being brilliant is neither necessary nor sufficient for good judging. Would much rather have people like Nathan and Robinson who have a lot of experience with what can go right and what can go wrong litigating a case from soup to nuts in a federal trial court. Just look at Judge Nathan’s experience this week in the Maxwell case. Granting a new trial in a matter like that is very, very tricky, and needs to consider not just abstract concepts rooted in the 6th Amendment, but also the realities of trying a long delayed high profile matter in year 2-3 of a global pandemic. Would love to see more trial judges and trial lawyers elevated.

Dude. Chill. Do you even go to YLS?

[Skool]

This is the kind of thing that only a law student would post. Yes, the federal judiciary “NEEDS” the lady who can’t control the tiger mom and her husband.

Who gives a shit about “brilliant.” Being brilliant is neither necessary nor sufficient for good judging. Would much rather have people like Nathan and Robinson who have a lot of experience with what can go right and what can go wrong litigating a case from soup to nuts in a federal trial court. Just look at Judge Nathan’s experience this week in the Maxwell case. Granting a new trial in a matter like that is very, very tricky, and needs to consider not just abstract concepts rooted in the 6th Amendment, but also the realities of trying a long delayed high profile matter in year 2-3 of a global pandemic. Would love to see more trial judges and trial lawyers elevated.

Controlling egotistical law professors isn't exactly part of the job description of a COA judge. And I definitely give a shit about "brilliant." Having academics on the COA isn't an issue. I think we all benefit from a diversity of experiences there. I like that Biden is nominating a lot more people with civil rights and criminal defense backgrounds. There are far too many former prosecutors on the bench, and it has led to some massive blind spots.

I don’t disagree with that. I just genuinely don’t quite get why Law professors need to be “in the mix” to tackle this problem. Especially if their professional experience doesn’t involve representing clients, and having to make tough practical decisions about how to keep litigation on the rails as a lawyer or judge. It’s not necessarily my first choice to have such people review the decisions of trial lawyers and trial judges when they’ve never really walked in their shoes. Putting aside prosecution experience, would much rather have experienced people like Brodie and Furman elevated, or more innocence project lawyers like Morrison or CJA lawyers like Hecker.

I’m really trying to imagine if Judge Nathan denied Maxwell’s motion for a new trial. The panel that I would like to hear they appeal would have some experience actually picking a jury, for instance.

[Anonymous User]

Gerken's close to a non-starter, not because of the recent drama, but because of her views on federalism.

But I've heard rumors that Rodriguez was being considered (and maybe still is) for a judgeship, and I would absolutely trust her to be a great judge.

Any thoughts on who he may nominate for the Carney 2d cir seat? Seems to me that should be in the works soon…

I know as little as you do, but I would guess Raheem Mullins on SCOCT. He's young (43) and diverse, and Carney's seat (unlike Cabranes's) is definitely a CT seat. I'd personally prefer they pick someone with a more progressive background since Mullins was a prosecutor before becoming a judge (especially Omar Williams on D. Conn.), but I'd be surprised if they elevated any of the recent district court appointees so soon.

I was thinking a YLS prof, like Heather Gerken or Cristina Rodriguez. Both brilliant, and while I am thoroughly pleased with the Biden COA noms, we need some profs in the mix. Also fits the trend with Cabranes, Carney, Calabresi with YLS ties.

Gerken's senate hearing would literally be must must television. The downside is that I would have to hear about Yale drama more than i already do on Twitter.

[Anonymous User]

Gerken's close to a non-starter, not because of the recent drama, but because of her views on federalism.

What about her views on federalism do you think makes her close to a non-starter?

[Anonymous User]

Gerken's close to a non-starter, not because of the recent drama, but because of her views on federalism.

What about her views on federalism do you think makes her close to a non-starter?

Partly joking, but her view that federalism is an important part of our government structure is probably close to a non-starter for some democratic senators.

[Anonymous User]

Gerken's close to a non-starter, not because of the recent drama, but because of her views on federalism.

What about her views on federalism do you think makes her close to a non-starter?

Partly joking, but her view that federalism is an important part of our government structure is probably close to a non-starter for some democratic senators.

I'm not sure that's even an accurate rendering of Gerken's take on federalism. She's very much a nationalist, which, point taken, likely wouldn't play well to Republican senators. But I doubt they'll get that in the weeds...

[Anonymous User]

I think Victor Bolden would be a very strong candidate for that seat, though he's a bit old, and maybe the favorite. There may also be 2 CT seats depending on what happens with the Cabranes one.

[Anonymous User]

Bolden would be fantastic. Have heard only great things. Whats the holdup on nominations? Political concerns?

[Anonymous User]

mediocre district court nominations are to some degree just part of the deal, tbh - favors to senators. Trump had plenty of blah ones. you're usually following blue slip process. consequential stuff gets appealed. ideally everyone is amazing but you can live with a dud.

I don't really get some of these COA nominations though

Childs for example - I'm sure she's like fine, but it's the D.C. Circuit. why not someone ex-OSG, or young liberal administrative law professor, or w/e? you want someone who's (a) trying to craft favorable precedent, (b) that can survive a cert petition, (c) that (ideally) you might get past an unfavorable panel. quality of theory/lawyering really does "matter." you can lose panels 2-1, write decisions that other judges don't respect/rely on, etc.

no doubt she would/will be an adequate DC Cir judge, but WH has this opportunity to pick literally anyone in the country to shape administrative law in a life-tenured role. don't get it.

it's 2022, there's no Pillard/Millett 2.0?

[Anonymous User]

mediocre district court nominations are to some degree just part of the deal, tbh - favors to senators. Trump had plenty of blah ones. you're usually following blue slip process. consequential stuff gets appealed. ideally everyone is amazing but you can live with a dud.

I don't really get some of these COA nominations though

Childs for example - I'm sure she's like fine, but it's the D.C. Circuit. why not someone ex-OSG, or young liberal administrative law professor? you want someone who's (a) trying to craft favorable precedent, (b) that can survive a cert petition, (c) that (ideally) you might get past an unfavorable panel. quality of theory/lawyering really does "matter." you can lose panels 2-1, write decisions that other judges don't respect/rely on, etc.

WH has this opportunity to pick literally anyone in the country to shape administrative law in a life-tenured role. I don't really get it

One word: Clyburn. (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/21/us/p ... woman.html)

If only we all had somebody who supported us like Jim Clyburn supports Childs...

[Anonymous User]

mediocre district court nominations are to some degree just part of the deal, tbh - favors to senators. Trump had plenty of blah ones. you're usually following blue slip process. consequential stuff gets appealed. ideally everyone is amazing but you can live with a dud.

I don't really get some of these COA nominations though

Childs for example - I'm sure she's like fine, but it's the D.C. Circuit. why not someone ex-OSG, or young liberal administrative law professor? you want someone who's (a) trying to craft favorable precedent, (b) that can survive a cert petition, (c) that (ideally) you might get past an unfavorable panel. quality of theory/lawyering really does "matter." you can lose panels 2-1, write decisions that other judges don't respect/rely on, etc.

WH has this opportunity to pick literally anyone in the country to shape administrative law in a life-tenured role. I don't really get it

She is Jim Clyburn's protege and pretty sure Biden wants to keep him happy as he is on House leadership + pretty much the main reason Biden came back and won the Dem primary.

Kinda same thing that happened in 2020 with McConnell and Justin Walker

[Anonymous User]

mediocre district court nominations are to some degree just part of the deal, tbh - favors to senators. Trump had plenty of blah ones. you're usually following blue slip process. consequential stuff gets appealed. ideally everyone is amazing but you can live with a dud.

I don't really get some of these COA nominations though

Childs for example - I'm sure she's like fine, but it's the D.C. Circuit. why not someone ex-OSG, or young liberal administrative law professor? you want someone who's (a) trying to craft favorable precedent, (b) that can survive a cert petition, (c) that (ideally) you might get past an unfavorable panel. quality of theory/lawyering really does "matter." you can lose panels 2-1, write decisions that other judges don't respect/rely on, etc.

WH has this opportunity to pick literally anyone in the country to shape administrative law in a life-tenured role. I don't really get it

She is Jim Clyburn's protege and pretty sure Biden wants to keep him happy as he is on House leadership + pretty much the main reason Biden came back and won the Dem primary.

Kinda same thing that happened in 2020 with McConnell and Justin Walker

unfortunate. most not-completely-insane FedSoc folks think Walker was a terrible pick

[Anonymous User]

I realize this may end up sounding naive, but I think the really ferocious sort of thinking about long-term placement and shaping of the law (which I tend to associate with FedSoc and the promotion of various FedSoc judges under Trump) is a little more recent than the generic "use judgeships to keep members of my party happy/for political deals" approach, and that Biden is going back to that more traditional model. I don't mean this is necessarily conscious planning on his part, or on Trump's; I think Trump had a lot of advisors who were really invested in this kind of FedSoc promotion model and he went along with it, and Biden probably doesn't, in part b/c I don't think there's as clear a consensus on the left as on the right. That is, I think the focus on the left has historically been more "let's appoint not FedSoc/conservative judges" than "let's promote a very specific kind leftist/liberal jurisprudence."

[Anonymous User]

I realize this may end up sounding naive, but I think the really ferocious sort of thinking about long-term placement and shaping of the law (which I tend to associate with FedSoc and the promotion of various FedSoc judges under Trump) is a little more recent than the generic "use judgeships to keep members of my party happy/for political deals" approach, and that Biden is going back to that more traditional model. I don't mean this is necessarily conscious planning on his part, or on Trump's; I think Trump had a lot of advisors who were really invested in this kind of FedSoc promotion model and he went along with it, and Biden probably doesn't, in part b/c I don't think there's as clear a consensus on the left as on the right. That is, I think the focus on the left has historically been more "let's appoint not FedSoc/conservative judges" than "let's promote a very specific kind leftist/liberal jurisprudence."

I mean, it seems pretty clear from the #s that the people driving Biden's judicial nominations process are have a clear vision of what they want, and it's some mix of: (a) young, (b) women, (c) people of color, (d) people from advocacy backgrounds

https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen ... 021-12-28/

we can put to one side whether this is a good or bad development, or whether this will be effective, but I do not think a year into the nominations process it's correct to say that Biden has returned to a sort of 90s/early-2000s-era approach to judicial nominations where Dems are asking traditional power state power brokers who they want and the White House is signing off

they're not putting in lots of connected law firm partners, or Den-affiliated ex-AUSAs, etc, or bumping up tons of district court judges (Nathan and Koh, sure, but they're liberal, check two diversity boxes, have national reputations)

[Anonymous User]

I realize this may end up sounding naive, but I think the really ferocious sort of thinking about long-term placement and shaping of the law (which I tend to associate with FedSoc and the promotion of various FedSoc judges under Trump) is a little more recent than the generic "use judgeships to keep members of my party happy/for political deals" approach, and that Biden is going back to that more traditional model. I don't mean this is necessarily conscious planning on his part, or on Trump's; I think Trump had a lot of advisors who were really invested in this kind of FedSoc promotion model and he went along with it, and Biden probably doesn't, in part b/c I don't think there's as clear a consensus on the left as on the right. That is, I think the focus on the left has historically been more "let's appoint not FedSoc/conservative judges" than "let's promote a very specific kind leftist/liberal jurisprudence."

they're not putting in lots of connected law firm partners, or Den-affiliated ex-AUSAs, etc, or bumping up tons of district court judges (Nathan and Koh, sure, but they're liberal, check two diversity boxes, have national reputations)

the NJ nominees have been almost exclusively this

[Anonymous User]

I agree that the Biden admin has a relatively clear vision of who they want, but the point I think I was trying to make (inartfully) was that people are being appointed more for who they are than for a specific ideology (beyond generally liberal). So I agree it’s not about just nominating *whoever* the local Dem wants and it was incorrect if I suggested that; there is a type. But I think the type is more about who a person is/their background than a super focused ideology.

Like, those things are obviously connected, especially with the advocacy backgrounds. But it seems to me the Biden priority is to diversify the judiciary, both in terms of race/gender and in terms of background (advocacy/defense minded), rather than promote a really specific jurisprudence. Whereas I felt that Trump’s judicial team was focused much more on getting the right ideology. (Given that ideology, it’s not shocking that there were a lot of white corporate dudes appointed, but I think the goal was to promote the ideology rather than to make the judiciary look a particular way and the white dude-ness was a little bit of a side effect.)

Again, I get that those things - ideology and identity - are connected, but it feels like the priorities were slightly different.

This was largely in response to the point about not appointing ex-OSG or young admin law profs. I just think Biden’s team isn’t drilling down that far into potential jurisprudence. And I said this may be naive because I know that people spend a lot of time on this and you could probably find both (diversity/experience and jurisprudence). But I think Trump’s
team was trying to mold the judiciary in a narrower/stricter way than Biden’s team is (probably in part because it seems a lot harder to get the left to unite about something like this than the right).

[Anonymous User]

...it seems a lot harder to get the left to unite about something like this than the right

The left is united on the principle that the judiciary should be more representative of America. The correct policies then flow from that representativeness. I think Biden has been very effective at pursuing this goal so far.

[Anonymous User]

...it seems a lot harder to get the left to unite about something like this than the right

The left is united on the principle that the judiciary should be more representative of America. The correct policies then flow from that representativeness. I think Biden has been very effective at pursuing this goal so far.

The Judiciary will never represent America because almost everyone nominated for a federal judgeship is undoubtedly much wealthier than the vast majority of this country. It's not very avoidable; just the nature of the profession. But don't be fooled into thinking that a more diverse group of identities will be enough for "correct policies" to come out of the Judiciary. There's a reason why wealth is not considered a suspect classification.

[Anonymous User]

...it seems a lot harder to get the left to unite about something like this than the right

The left is united on the principle that the judiciary should be more representative of America. The correct policies then flow from that representativeness. I think Biden has been very effective at pursuing this goal so far.

The Judiciary will never represent America because almost everyone nominated for a federal judgeship is undoubtedly much wealthier than the vast majority of this country. It's not very avoidable; just the nature of the profession. But don't be fooled into thinking that a more diverse group of identities will be enough for "correct policies" to come out of the Judiciary. There's a reason why wealth is not considered a suspect classification.

I think that's the point of what the WH is doing though, right? Whereas in the Obama admin it was your standard Biglaw partner defending large corporations or prosecutor, the Biden team seems to largely be going for people from PD/Issue advocacy backgrounds. Of course, that doesn't mean they won't have a class bias but I think it definitely helps.

[Anonymous User]

I think that's the point of what the WH is doing though, right? Whereas in the Obama admin it was your standard Biglaw partner defending large corporations or prosecutor, the Biden team seems to largely be going for people from PD/Issue advocacy backgrounds. Of course, that doesn't mean they won't have a class bias but I think it definitely helps.

You're very correct. At the very least, we'll be seeing less multimillionaires on the bench. I didn't mean to sound too pessimistic, and largely I think Biden's been appointing better judges than most recent Presidents. I am just skeptical that a more "representative" Judiciary will do more than simply be slightly better than it currently is.