112th Congress: Senate Judicial Confirmations

June bug · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:41 pm

AnitaMaria wrote:

Joseph Robidoux III wrote:

Vitter (R-Pampers)

I missed that! Thanks for catching it, Anita. =))

Taverl · **Posted:** Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:34 pm

AnitaMaria wrote:

Joseph Robidoux III wrote:

Vitter (R-Pampers)

I see your =))

and raise you a :bwaha:

Joseph Robidoux III · **Posted:** Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:02 am

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

Joseph Robidoux III wrote:

I've been critical of Reid's leadership abilities in the past. I'm very pleased to see the Senate Majority Leader force this issue.

About goddamn time. And yes, Reid growing a pair is nice.

Just in case anybody has forgotten, I also have another gripe regarding judicial nominations.

Sen Grassley wrote:

Earlier this week, I heard remarks blaming the judicial vacancy rate on Republican obstruction. What was failed to be discussed, not even mentioned, was that 44 of the 83 judicial vacancies have no nominee. Of the 35 judicial vacancies designated as “judicial emergencies,” the President has failed to submit a nomination for 19 of those seats. We can’t proceed on nominations if he doesn’t even send them up.This has been the pattern for most of this administration – failure or delay in submitting nominations to the Senate.
http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/Art ... 1502=39752

The President's failure to make timely nominations is frustrating. I agree with Loh's comment from last October.

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

Considering his academic history, his contributions to the judiciary would have been among his most valuable, had he bothered making any. His tardiness is shocking and irresponsible.
viewtopic.php?p=300955#p300955

The "Thurmond Rule" will probably be enforced by Republicans no later than the end of July (possibly the end of June). At that time any judicial vacancies will be reserved for the winner of the 2012 presidential election.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legisl ... hedule.htm

Joseph Robidoux III · **Posted:** Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:31 pm

The Senate today confirmed 3 more nominations from the list of 14 to be District Court Judges:
David O. Nuffer (District of Utah)
Ronnie Abrams (Southern District of New York)
Rudolph Contreras (District of the District of Columbia)

During the Judiciary Committee hearing for Magistrate Judge Nuffer, Sen Lee said he "commends President Obama for his excellent choice in this nomination". Lee later added Nuffer is an "outstanding nominee" and urged his fellow senators to support this confirmation.
http://www.senate.gov/fplayers/jw57/url ... 0&dur=4853
Sen Lee's comments run approximately from the 34:25 to the 36:15 marks.

Todays roll call confirmation votes for Nuffer and Abrams were both 96-2. Sen DeMint and you-know-who voted against both. The Contreras nomination was confirmed by a voice vote (I didn't hear anyone yell "No").
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... vote=00058
The Nuffer vote results are presently unavailable at the Senate site for some reason.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... vote=00057

Edit: Added link for Nuffer vote.

Joseph Robidoux III · **Posted:** Fri Mar 23, 2012 2:10 am

The Senate Judiciary Committee meets regularly on Thursday mornings (Executive Business Meeting) to vote on nominations and proposed legislation referred to them. The last two meetings have been a bit different than normal. On both occasions Sen Grassley was the only Republican senator in attendance. Although Democrats hold a 10-8 majority, committee rules prohibit committee action unless two members of the minority party are in attendance. Last week Sen Leahy voiced his disapproval at senators not showing up, then adjourned the meeting. Yesterday Leahy was upset and called the Republicans absence a boycott. Grassley replied he had no knowledge of a boycott, and if there were one he probably would have heard about it.

My speculation is Grassley demanded he be excused from someone's office before senators agreed to any boycott in order for him to truthfully plead ignorance.

The end result is that no action was taken on:
1) Richard Gary Taranto, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit
2) Robin S. Rosenbaum, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida
3) Gershwin A. Drain, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan
4) Gregory Keith Davis, to be United States Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi
5) S.2159, A bill to extend the authorization of the Drug-Free Communities Support Program through fiscal year 2017 (Leahy, Grassley, Feinstein)
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearing ... cf2a3d5154

Link for the Mar 15 Executive Business Meeting:
http://www.senate.gov/fplayers/jw57/url ... 0&dur=3801
Link for the Mar 22 Executive Business Meeting:
http://www.senate.gov/fplayers/jw57/com ... 12&st=1200

If Grassley (Ranking Minority Member) is the only Republican at next weeks Executive Business Meeting, all doubts of a boycott will be removed.

Joseph Robidoux III · **Posted:** Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:37 pm

The names of the next two judicial nominees to have their confirmation votes have been announced.

US Senate Executive Calendar wrote:

UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT
Miranda Du (Cal. No. 464)
Susie Morgan (Cal. No. 497)
Ordered, That at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 28, 2012, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations, en bloc:
Miranda Du, of Nevada, to be United States District Judge for the District of Nevada; and
Susie Morgan, of Louisiana, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Ordered further, That there be 60 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the Du and Morgan nominations, in that order; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session. (March 27, 2012.)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/e ... /xcalv.pdf

Senate Majority Leader Reid deserves some recognition for this. The Unanimous Consent Agreement allows for 60 minutes of debate but no cloture vote. After all debate time has been exhausted or given back a confirmation vote is required. That's no big deal for the Morgan nomination, but many Republicans aren't going to be happy when they see a filibuster is not possible for Du.

Congratulations Harry. Maybe next time Chuckie.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:56 pm

Please 'splain, Joe Ruby.

Joseph Robidoux III · **Posted:** Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:11 pm

Harry Reid is probably Miranda Du's biggest supporter on Capitol Hill and he wants her confirmed. My compliments to Reid are not based upon Du's abilities or speculation regarding what kind of USDC Judge she will be. I'm offering credit for Reid demanding something from McConnell and getting it as opposed to backing down and not pushing the issue at all.

Du was favorably reported out of the Judiciary Committee on a 10-8 vote. Every Republican voted nay. Her confirmation very probably would have been subject to a cloture vote without the agreement made regarding the 14 judicial nominations.

Whichever nomination that was voice voted out of committee (or the 17-1 Hillman recorded vote) that doesn't get included in the group of 14 could still be confirmed without a lot of difficulty. The Du nomination was never going to be easy. That became apparent some time ago.

kate520 · **Posted:** Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:00 am

Mr. JoeRo, I appreciate your posts on senate doings. Thanks.

Tomtech · **Posted:** Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:07 pm

kate520 wrote:

Mr. JoeRo, I appreciate your posts on senate doings. Thanks.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ $\:D/$

Joseph Robidoux III · **Posted:** Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:18 pm

Thank you. Compliments are always readily accepted, just like cash. :mrgreen:

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:20 pm

I prefer the dough.

Joseph Robidoux III · **Posted:** Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:55 pm

The Senate confirmed the Miranda Du (59-39) and Susie Morgan (96-1) judicial nominations this afternoon. I didn't hear who voted against Morgan but I believe I can offer a WAG that probably will be correct (the Senate links are usually not available until an hour after the vote).
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... vote=00061
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... vote=00062

Edit: I would have been wrong. Sen Lee voted against Du but didn't vote on the Morgan nomination. Sen DeMint voted nay.

The Du nomination had a red flag that should have been apparent as Republican justification for opposing her nomination.

Miranda Du
District of Nevada
Nominated: August 2, 2011
ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Qualified, Minority Not Qualified
Committee Questionnaire
Hearing Date: October 4, 2011
Questions For The Record
Reported By Committee: November 3, 2011
Confirmed By Senate:
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominat ... ngress.cfm

Congratulations are still in order for Sen Reid finally acting like someone who has the largest chip stack in front of him. Hopefully we'll see more of this in the future.

There was a moment during debate on the Du nomination some here might enjoy as I did. During Sen Grassley's Senate floor speech opposing the nomination, he pulled an Orly (his cell phone rang). Grassley, ever the consummate politician he is, merely unbuttoned his blazer, removed his phone from the holster, viewed then silenced it and kept on talking while never missing a beat. The guy is a pro.
http://floor.senate.gov/MediaPlayer.php ... lip_id=199
Sen Grassley begins speaking at the 7:15:00 mark and the phone rings at the 7:18:20 mark.

I believe there is something about that in the local rules.

Whatever4 · **Posted:** Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:25 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

I prefer the dough.

Gluten-free, please.

MaineSkeptic · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm **Posts:** 5295

Whatever4 wrote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

I prefer the dough.

Gluten-free, please.

D'OH!

esseff44 · **Posted:** Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:50 pm

Uh-oh, Miranda Mai Du had been sanctioned for 'reckless' lawyering. Not a good thing to have on your record.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:11 pm

esseff44 wrote:

Uh-oh, Miranda Mai Du had been sanctioned for 'reckless' lawyering. Not a good thing to have on your record.

Link, please. :geezer:

June bug · **Posted:** Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:18 pm

Here,

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominat ... u-QFRs.pdf

Found that in the link Joseph posted above.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:42 pm

Thanks. Her resume is thin. No criminal experience and some work on 4 jury trials. The reckless finding is also problematic.

esseff44 · **Posted:** Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:22 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Thanks. Her resume is thin. No criminal experience and some work on 4 jury trials. The reckless finding is also problematic.

I am afraid I have to agree with Senator Grassley on this one. :cry:

A federal judgeship should not require on-the-job training....not the amount she will need anyway.

Joseph Robidoux III · **Posted:** Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:24 pm

The following is Sen Leahy's response to the "reckless" charge.

Sen Leahy wrote:

Governor Sandoval fully supports Ms. Du’s nomination. In his recommendation letter, he wrote that when Ms. Du appeared before him when he was a judge, she “was always well prepared and represented her clients with integrity and distinction.” He further stated that she had his “full support” for confirmation as a Federal district judge. Ironically, he was the judge in the one case on which Republicans rely to criticize the nominee. As the judge, he had overlooked the jurisdictional argument when initially deciding against dismissing the case. The Magistrate Judge on the case issued sanctions, but Governor Sandoval ultimately struck the motion for sanctions as moot when Ms. Du and her legal team resolved the dispute with the third-party. In addition, Ms. Du testified candidly about the incident during her Committee hearing and in her response to the Questions for the Record, acknowledged that she had “learned a great deal from this experience.” Incidents like this have never held up a nomination before in the past, and it should certainly not hold up Ms. Du’s nomination. President Obama’s nominees should not be held to a different or new standard.

She has spent her 17-year legal career in private practice as a partner at a law firm in Reno, Nevada. She currently serves as chair of the firm’s Employment & Labor Law Group. Ms. Du’s story is compelling. She was selected by Super Lawyers as a 2009 “Mountain States Rising Star” and was named as one of the “Top 20 Under 40” Young Professionals in the Reno-Tahoe Area in 2008. That she is being opposed because she and her legal team filed a third-party complaint on behalf of a client in one case is to hold her to a new standard than Senate Republicans have utilized with other nominees and other Presidents in the past.
http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/press ... 8de5109b25

I'll leave it to the IAALs to argue who is right, Leahy or Grassley.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:34 pm

Quote:

Ms. Du’s story is compelling. She was selected by Super Lawyers as a 2009 “Mountain States Rising Star” and was named as one of the “Top 20 Under 40” Young Professionals in the Reno-Tahoe Area in 2008.

"Super Lawyers" is a bull shit marketing tool. Pay enough money and you, too, can be in Who's Who in American Business a Super Lawyer. Any lawyer touting that on her resume is akin to the author of a book putting a Harriet Klausner review on the back cover.

Ms. Du may be a fine person. She shouldn't be a Federal judge. She should continue to amaze as a Super Lawyer rising star.

Joseph Robidoux III · **Posted:** Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:59 pm

The Du nomination probably would not have survived a cloture vote. She was confirmed 59-39 and the only two senators who didn't vote were Hatch (R-UT) and Kirk (R-IL). IMHO her confirmation was successful because she was part of a package.

Joseph Robidoux III · **Posted:** Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:49 am

The Senate Judiciary Committee met this morning (Executive Business Meeting) and favorably reported 4 nominations (1 Circuit Court, 2 District Court & 1 US Attorney). At the request of the minority, the committee held over 5 nominations (1 Circuit Court & 4 District Court) that were on the agenda for the first time (standard request that Sen Leahy honors) until their next meeting. There were 2 roll call votes (10-8 on a nomination and 12-6 on proposed legislation) to indicate all members were in attendance.*

The Senate will not be in session for two weeks (no need to stay since the Birther Summit was canceled). We may have to wait a while before finding out who the remaining 5 USDC nominees are that will receive their confirmation votes in addition to the 2 Circuit Court nominees.

Edit: Added link for the comittee webcast that I'll have time to review later.
http://www.senate.gov/fplayers/jw57/url ... 0&dur=2724

Edit: The 10-8 vote was for Gershwin Drain to be a District Court Judge. Sen Grassley stated that Drain wrote an article not long ago that was critical of the NRA. Grassley also told the committee about another article where Drain disputed the merits of capital punishment. Those subjects, not surprisingly, got the attention of Republicans.

*Some of the votes were by proxy. Senators Grassley, Coburn and Lee were the Republicans attending today.

Joseph Robidoux III · **Posted:** Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:05 pm

Next up:

US Senate Executive Calendar wrote:

UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT
Stephanie Dawn Thacker (Cal. No. 460)
Ordered, That at 4:30 pm on Monday, April 16, 2012, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Stephanie Dawn Thacker, of West Virginia, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit.
Ordered further, That there be 60 minutes for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the Thacker nomination; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session. (March 29, 2012.)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/e ... /xcalv.pdf

The Thacker confirmaton vote should proceed without much problem. She was unanimously voice voted out of committee along with 3 others en banc. That Executive Business Meeting (Nov 3, 2011) also had the Miranda Du nomination on the agenda. Grassley offered his objections to Du prior to the roll call vote on her nomination. Nomination comments and votes begin at approximately the 32:00 mark.
http://www.senate.gov/fplayers/jw57/url ... 0&dur=3542

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

112th Congress: Senate Judicial Confirmations

Who is online