This week the Senate confirmed John McConnell to be a district court judge by a 50-44 vote. McConnell was the 20th Article III judicial confirmation this year. However, he was the first nominee that was not confirmed by either a voice vote or a unanimous recorded vote.

The next nominee on the executive calendar is Edward Chen. Things should get interesting now that many of the non-controversial nominees have been confirmed first.

The Senate is presently debating the nomination of Edward Chen to be a District Judge for the Northern District of California (CSPAN2). The Senate's executive calendar states that after the 3 hours of debate, Senators will vote on his confirmation. The calendar (IMHO) states that there will be no cloture vote, instead the Senate will go straight to the up-down vote.

This nomination has taken a while to get this far.
Edward M. Chen
Northern District of California
Nominated: Jan. 5, 2011 (Aug. 6, 2009, Jan. 20, 2010, Sept. 13, 2010)
ABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified
Committee Questionnaire Update
Hearing Date: September 23, 2009
Questions For The Record
Additional Questions For The Record
Reported By Committee: Mar. 17, 2011 (Oct. 15, 2009, Feb. 4, 2010, Sept. 23, 2010)
Returned To President: December 22, 2010
Confirmed By Senate:
Hearing Transcript
http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominations ... ngress.cfm

Chen's nomination was confirmed today by a 56-42 vote.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... vote=00068

Senate Republicans had blocked this nomination for some time. Hopefully Goodwin Liu and Caitland Halligan can get their up/down vote and be confirmed this summer.

We are in crisis mode here at the District of Arizona. Are any Arizonans up for a confirmation vote?

The death of Judge Roll during the Tucson shooting made an already critical situation worse for us here. The Phoenix docket is slower than I've ever seen it in my time as a lawyer and law student who externed for the federal bench. I assume Tucson is as bad or worse.

The answer is no.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominations ... m#District

According to the US Courts website, there are 3 vacancies for the AZ District Court. There have been 90+ vacancies total for some time now.

09 - AZ Roll,John M. Deceased
09 - AZ Zapata,Frank R. Senior
09 - AZ Murguia,Mary H. Elevated
http://www.uscourts.gov/JudgesAndJudges ... ncies.aspx
http://www.uscourts.gov/JudgesAndJudges ... ncies.aspx

Poutine and Tes are available. (BB, too, if she doesn't mind coming back to the arid land.)

I am surprised that nobody has been nominated for any of these vacancies. The three are listed as judicial emergencies. The Democratic congress critters should have made a recommendation to Pres Obama some time ago. IIRC, that's what Judge Roll wanted to speak to Rep Giffords about.

The following is included in Sen Charles Grassley's statement about the Chen nomination:

http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article ... 1502=34436

Grassley has a very valid point IMO.

This is probably what the "Party of NO!" blocking the judicial appointments of Obama in the Senate was all about. Clogging the court system to the breaking point. After all its part of big goverment, ya know.

I edited my post and added the bottom half as you were posting.

Yes you did and I read it. I have to say that was a very good speech by Senator Grassley, and he makes some very valid points on Judge Chen.

I cant comment on the other stuff as I haven't been looking at whats been going on with the US senate. However it is true there was a huge backlog of judicial appointments stalled in the senate in the last congress, I think I read something like 300. That MAY be causing the aforementioned lack of enthusiasm for sending more their way, but I really don't know.

I believe vacancies have been approximately 100 for much of the Obama presidency. Yes, the Republicans have stalled many. Some were done for differences in judicial philosophy, others just to get even for the last years of the Bush presidency.

The Senate prohibited the use of secret holds earlier this year, and that appears to have helped. Prior to the McConnell confirmation vote, there was not 1 negative vote for any nominee.

The Republicans will attempt to keep Liu off the bench. Some view him as a future SCOTUS justice.
http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article ... 1502=33656

Grassley will attempt to keep Halligan off the DC bench. He still wants to get even.

http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article ... 1502=31511

That's what being a statesman is all about.

Just a guess but I would venture that it's some Arizona butts that need to be kicked, not the President's, for lack of a nominee for the three vacancies in the District of Arizona.

With the exception of SCOTUS and the Court of Appeals for DC, I believe the President would rely heavily, if not entirely, on the recommendation(s) of others. In this case, others means the congressional delegation from Arizona or her former Governor.

As a matter of tradition and custom, I think the President relies on recommendations from any given state's two Senators. But I know nothing about that process, and it's not an open one. I can't imagine that Kyl and McCain have refused to provide any names to the White House. Everyone in leadership roles here has been pushing for nominations, including, as everyone knows all too well by now, Gabbie Giffords. (That very effort is why she got to know Judge Roll, leading to him showing up to say hello to her at the Safeway in Tucson, where he died.)

Here's the official blurb on nominations. However, I have read that the president relies more on nominations from the state's congressional delegation members that are of the same party. Senator Kyl may be putting forth names of people he would like to see that are too extremist and who knows about the Maverick.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/judicial.cfm

If it were everyone, there would be three names on the Senate list for hearings or a confirmation vote.

When Bush was in office he worked out a deal for California with Sens. Feinstein and Boxer that every 3rd nominee would be someone they suggested. The other nominees would be suggested by the Republican delegation. I must say, we got a lot of very good judges out of that process. (This is, after all, the Ninth Circuit.)

One of our vacancies here in Arizona was actually created by the elevation, by Obama, of one of our federal district judges to the 9th Circuit. You will be pleased to see Judge Murguia contribute to the 9th Circuit's reversal rate at the Supreme Court.

I recall reading somewhere that a similar instance occurred in New York during the GHW Bush presidency (1 out of 4). The claim was made that this is the reason Bush 41 nominated Sotomayor to the District Court level.

The Ninth Circuit desperately needs to be split up. Not sure if that will spark enough discussion to justify a thread of its own.

Take that back. I cannot even imagine my continuing to live in and defend the state of Arizona if it weren't for our being governed by the 9th Circuit.

The problem has always been if one of the new Circuits becomes a single state entity and, if not, who goes along with California. In fact, the Circuit should really be split into 3 Circuits.

Oddly enough, I was just reading over the various proposals for splitting the Ninth. The population covered by this district is about twice as much as or more than other districts. Even if they split, they will still have restricted en banc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Circ ... _proposals

There's a proposal that involves splitting California. Actually, I suspect California itself ought to be split up, but that's an entirely different issue. You're not doing a great job out there, your so-called Bar Association being a great example. I think the feds should pass a law to make the most insane picture of Orly the Great Seal of the California Bar.

Sorry, just taunting at this point.