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.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 11:18 pmSomeone 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.lavarman84 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 7:34 pmIt'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.Anonymous User wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 5:59 pmI 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).
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).throwawayt14 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 14, 2023 6:02 pmAnd no one being honest thinks Lee was more qualified than Feinerman.
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.
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.