Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump continues conquest of 9th Circuit with two new nominations

Trump continues conquest of 9th Circuit with two new nominations

Approaching the flipping point.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/trump-nominates-openly-gay-conservative-federal-appeals-court-n920831

Donald Trump recently celebrated a milestone — 150 federal court judges confirmed, including 43 Appeals Court judges.

Liberals were late to wake up to the fact that while they were obsessing over supposed Russia collusion, Trump was reshaping the federal judiciary for a generation.

The notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit has not yet flipped, with 16 Democrat-nominated and 12-Republican nominated Judges, but it’s getting there with two new nominations, including one opposed by California Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris.  Courthouse News reports:

President Donald Trump announced six new judicial nominees on Friday, including two to seats on the once reliably liberal Ninth Circuit and four to federal courts in California.

One of the nominees to the Ninth Circuit will be familiar to senators, as Trump has now three times chosen Patrick Bumatay for a federal judgeship. Trump first chose Bumatay, a prosecutor in the Southern District of California, for a seat on the Ninth Circuit in 2018, but the Senate never took action on the nomination.

Trump tapped him for a judgeship again earlier this year, this time for a position on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Bumatay, who is openly gay, currently leads the appellate and narcotics sections of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California, and worked as counselor to the attorney general in 2018, advising on opioid strategy and other issues.

California Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, both Democrats who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, raised concerns about Bumatay’s lack of judicial experience during his first pass at the Ninth Circuit position.

In a statement, Harris said she will oppose Bumatay’s nomination going forward, citing a “troubling prosecutorial record” and inexperience.

Carrie Severino writes at National Review, Who is Patrick Bumatay?

41 years old, Bumatay graduated cum laude from Yale University in 2000, where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. He graduated from Harvard Law School in 2006, where he was articles editor of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy — a leading law journal for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship… Bumatay has been an active member of The Federalist Society since law school.

The Wall Street Journal says Trump is right to renominate Bumatay:

Readers may recall that the White House first nominated Mr. Bumatay in the last Congress but failed to renominate him earlier this year after complaints from California’s Democratic Senators, Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris. The new White House counsel team thought it might win some greater cooperation from the Democrats by listening to their concerns about Mr. Bumatay.

The White House instead nominated Daniel Bress for the Ninth Circuit, but the Senators opposed him too. Judge Bress was confirmed in any case. The White House then nominated Mr. Bumatay for a district-court position, but the Senators opposed him for that seat as well.

The White House has now given up hope for judicial comity and nominated Mr. Bumatay again for the Ninth Circuit. The 41-year-old Filipino-American is currently a federal prosecutor in San Diego. He has also worked at the Justice Department as a counselor to the Attorney General on criminal issues, as well as the Office of Legal Policy. By all accounts he is a top-notch legal mind and constitutional originalist.

Appeals Court Judges matter. So do elections.

 

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Good news. Still think they should break it up. It’s too big anyway.

We have hillary clinton to thank for this. But for her incompetence and corruption, Trump would not have had a chance at being president. But her treason and corruption have been so blantant, she pissed off the nation, which blew off Jeb!, and gave The Donald a forum – which he used brillantly: hence, the death of the wacko 9th Circus.

Remember when we were being told Trump would appoint his sister to the SC? And others like her?

Reason 9,568 why you should never listen to a neverTrumper.

You know who you are. I know you’re reading.

Why is it deemed important to know that he is openly gay? It is never written that someone is openly heterosexual. Neither preference is important, is it?

    tom_swift in reply to herm2416. | September 21, 2019 at 12:18 am

    Possibly it depends on how “open” that “openly” is.

    DuxRedux in reply to herm2416. | September 21, 2019 at 9:43 am

    Kamala Harris and Diane Feinstein appear homophobic opposing him, no matter his record or experience: it’s just another little political thing for the great unwashed to chew on

    Political position are the new Tinder: you gotta advertise, right? Otherwise, you’ll be bar hopping the rest of your life trying to find Mr. or Miss Right.

    Milhouse in reply to herm2416. | September 21, 2019 at 11:05 pm

    Almost everyone in public life is openly heterosexual, so it doesn’t have to be metioned; indeed, anyone in public life who does not regularly flaunt their heterosexuality is automatically assumed to be secretly homosexual.

“California Senators Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, both Democrats who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, raised concerns about Bumatay’s lack of judicial experience during his first pass at the Ninth Circuit position.”

I remember how vocal Feinstein was against Kagan’s nomination to SCOTUS for the same reason.

Oh, wait, no I don’t.

    Why do BOTH CA senators get a seat on the same committee? Especially when BOTH are Democrats?

      zennyfan in reply to GWB. | September 21, 2019 at 7:33 pm

      Dems couldn’t oust Feinstein from the committee without accusations of ageism, and when committee assignments were made, Kamala was the presumptive presidential nominee and needed the heft of the assignment.

Why didn’t previous GOP presidents figure this out? Thus is arguably the most important thing a president can do to affect future generations. I’m really impressed by the strategy In plain sight.

    Formerly known as Skeptic in reply to Sally MJ. | September 21, 2019 at 7:21 am

    Previous GOP Presidents couldn’t have gotten away with it. It took Harry Reid breaking the filibuster for judicial nominees to make this all possible.

    JoeyFalconi1 in reply to Sally MJ. | September 21, 2019 at 9:48 am

    Yes, credit Reid for ending the judicial filibuster. But since the legislative filibuster is alive and well, it takes 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate — with the exceptions of nominations, tax and regulatory reform. And so, since Schumer obstructed most of the legislative agenda, McConnell grabbed successes where he could. It’s a decision that each of them made. Who got the better deal?

Break it up in to three new courts and then appoint new judges to every position. I hear liberals would particularly love that hahaahah

The other thing that made me snicker is that Democrats now only have themselves to blame for this guy being appointed to the 9th circuit because they could have gotten rid of him to lesser position. But ni, Demicrats just had to Democrat and oppose him everywhere so now he goes in to the 9th circuit!

The President’s judicial appointments are the brightest point for me. There is plenty I don’t like about President Trump, but when I think of the alternative, I shudder with dread!

    Close The Fed in reply to Romey. | September 21, 2019 at 8:34 am

    I agree that Trump is imperfect as we all are…. but I wouldn’t choose this as the brightest spot…. there are so many. The way he eviscerates the media is golden!!!

There are about 180 Court of Appeals judges, so Trump would need to get to 60 (another 17) in order to make 1/3 of all sitting (non-senior) COA judges. That would be a significant achievement in a single term. T

There are about 675 District Court judges, but the number is a little misleading because of the large number of “senior” judges who participate actively in the trial of cases. At last check, there were over 350 senior district judges, and they handle about 25% of all cases. So Trump’s district court appointments are likely to have a much smaller over impact on the numbers. He would need another 60 district court appointments to reach 25% of non-senior DCT judges, and the huge number of ‘seniors’ still trying cases would dilute that impact further.

    It would be good if we could limit that Senior status. I clearly remember trial before Sarah T. Hughes where she slept through most of the testimony, grew tired of the fraud trial (occasionally waking her up?) and called the defense attorneys in (without the AUSA) and struck a plea bargain deal with them. She presented the “deal” to the AUSA and, when he demurred, called the US Attorney and told him to get his Assistant “in line”. We knew we had the Jury ready to convict on all the charged felonies, instead the trial ended with a plea deal for one misdemeanor.

    JoeyFalconi1 in reply to Publius_2020. | September 21, 2019 at 10:03 am

    Yeah, 60 new circuit court judges will be a tough slog. But since Trump as already nominated 51, it’s possible that 2 more may retire. That would be 30% of 179 or 53, a remarkable accomplishment given the fact that judges think they can live forever. Like Stephen Reinhardt, the so-called Liberal Lion of the 9th circuit. He could have retired in his 80s and handed the reins to an Obama nominee. Instead, he died at 87 and handed his legacy to Ken Lee, a Trump nominee and an active member of the Federalist Society.

In a statement, Harris said she will oppose Bumatay’s nomination going forward, citing a “troubling prosecutorial record” and inexperience.

Like yours was spotless, you floozy!!!!

I don’t much care for Mitch McConnell, but I have to give him credit for pushing these nominations through.

    And making Associate Justice Gorsuch possible.

    Close The Fed in reply to snopercod. | September 21, 2019 at 8:36 am

    Yeah, McConnell never saw a Tea Party/Small Government/Keep the Judiciary in their Lane candidate he liked. He’s squashed them all like bugs, including Roy Moore.

    JoeyFalconi1 in reply to snopercod. | September 21, 2019 at 10:17 am

    Y’all don’t give McConnell enough credit. First, he’s been able to these nominations through with a razor thin or nonexistent majority. Second, many of the nominees are either members or experts at the Federalist Society. Finally, his early successes led to expanded GOP Senate control in 2018. His Kavanaugh defense is one for the ages.

      Has McConnell explained why he helped Obama pass his “Guarantee Iran Acquisition of Nuclear Tipped ICBMS” agreement through the Senate? He could have stopped it easily by declaring that it was a treaty and holding a ratification vote?

        JoeyFalconi1 in reply to ConradCA. | September 21, 2019 at 5:44 pm

        Precisely how could McConnell have forced Obama to submit the Iran Deal as a treaty subject to a 2/3 vote??? Impossible. But even if somehow the GOP had demanded a treaty vote, they wouldn’t have the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster. In the end, Obama would have enacted it as an executive agreement, which it was until Trump put it in the dumpster. Look, since WWII the Senate rarely gets the chance to vote on a treaty. Meanwhile, there has been more than 17,000 executive agreements with foreign nations.

        Milhouse in reply to ConradCA. | September 21, 2019 at 11:22 pm

        Has McConnell explained why he helped Obama pass his “Guarantee Iran Acquisition of Nuclear Tipped ICBMS” agreement through the Senate? He could have stopped it easily by declaring that it was a treaty and holding a ratification vote?

        That is completely backwards and completely false. The Iran deal isn’t a treaty, because the president didn’t send it to the senate for its consent. Having the senate declare that it doesn’t consent to something it hasn’t even been asked to consent to would just be stupid. And the idea that such a stupid vote could somehow have stopped 0bama from implementing his deal is even stupider. Anyone who makes such a claim is either terminally stupid, or lying. Mostly the latter.

        The only way to stop the deal was to pass a law forbidding it, and that would have taken 2/3 of each house. That’s a simple fact.

        The vote you’re complaining about imposed a delay on implementing any deal, so opponents would have a chance to put together the 2/3 in each house needed to stop it. It wasn’t much, but it was something. Without it 0bama could have implemented his deal the day he signed it. But even with the delay, when the time came the numbers couldn’t be found to stop it, because not enough Democrats dared to defy 0bama.

The left keeps blowing itself up because it thinks it will never lose. Harry Reid breaks the filibuster, so nothing stops Trump with McConnell. They are even ignoring the “courtesy” of blue slips when they are abused. The Left wanted to pack the courts to override democracy (like the prop denying benefits to illegals or gay marriage – both won in California; judges overturned it). Ok, we can play that game too. Then they scream “no fair!”. The 9th circus needs to be split up. It is stupid to have it cover both CA and MT.

    JoeyFalconi1 in reply to tz. | September 21, 2019 at 10:07 am

    Two big questions for the future. If the Dems can control both the White House and the Senate, will they blow up the blue slips for district court nominees? And will they blow up the legislative filibuster?

      Probably to the first, unlikely to the second. If they wanted to blow up the legislative filibuster they would have done it when they had the chance. Now maybe they’ve changed their minds since then, but given how much they now regret blowing up the nomination filibuster I doubt they’ve become more inclined to blow up another one.

The GOP would love to split the 9th. But they can’t do it without 60 votes.

Two of these three nominees are replacing judges previously appointed by Republicans, so the partisan breakdown (assuming all three are confirmed) will be 13R-16D. An improvement, but not a flip. Yet. 2nd and 11th Circuits are poised to flip, which is nice.

Does anyone recall whether Bumatay was one of the nominees derailed by Flake’s betrayal?

What’s with the prominent gay peoples’ names beginning with “butt” and “bum”? And, of course, “obama”.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend