The Senate continued its work on judicial nominations this week, confirming four Article III nominees: Tiffany Johnson (N.D. Ga.), Keli Neary (M.D. Pa.), Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon (C.D. Cal.), and Noël Wise (N.D. Cal.).
On Thursday, Committee held an executive business meeting. At the meeting, the Committee advanced two Article III nominees to the floor: Magistrate Judge Benjamin Cheeks (S.D. Cal.) and Judge Serena Murillo (C.D. Cal.) These nominees are now eligible for cloture and confirmation votes.
With these confirmations, the Biden-Harris Administration is at 233 Article III confirmations. The current administration is only one judicial confirmation short of matching the Trump’s administration’s 234 four-year total.
As of December 12th, there are 47 Article III vacancies, 35 of which are current. There are now 10 pending nominees: 5 waiting for floor votes, 1 waiting to be reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and 4 waiting for hearings.
Washington, DC — Today, the American Constitution Society released the following statement on President Biden's commitment to nominating the first Black woman to the Supreme Court of the United States.
ACS applauds President Biden for reaffirming his commitment to nominating a Black woman to fill Justice Breyer’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has never represented the diversity of the American people. For most of our history, it was uniformly white and male. To our collective detriment, there has never been a Black woman justice on the Supreme Court, and ACS looks forward to this changing soon.
There are many exceptionally qualified Black women lawyers —both within and outside of the federal judiciary. This includes the Black women being discussed in the press as potential nominees, all of whom are without doubt qualified to serve on the Supreme Court and would make excellent justices.
ACS is appalled by the racist remarks being made about President Biden’s commitment to nominating a Black woman and about potential nominees. Such racist attacks are repugnant and serve only to underscore the systemic racism and oppression that Black women have consistently faced in this country. These attacks further highlight how unrepresentative our highest court has been and why it is imperative that we prioritize diversity on our courts.
Justices inevitably bring their life experience to their deliberations on the Court. In order for the Court to truly understand and address the needs of the American people, it is imperative to have its members reflect the diversity of the American public and a variety of lived experiences.
ACS looks forward to the first Black woman justice on the Supreme Court and is committed to further diversifying our federal courts moving forward.
###
AMERICAN CONSTITUTION SOCIETY
ACS believes that the Constitution is “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” We interpret the Constitution based on its text and against the backdrop of history and lived experience. Through a diverse nationwide network of progressive lawyers, law students, judges, scholars, and many others, we work to uphold the Constitution in the 21st Century by ensuring that law is a force for protecting our democracy and the public interest and for improving people’s lives. For more information, visit us at www.acslaw.org or on Twitter @acslaw.
Julie Girard and Kevin Golembiewski, Co-Presidents, ACS Tampa Lawyer Chapter
Julie Girard and Kevin Golembiewski Co-Presidents, ACS Tampa Lawyer Chapter
There’s a debate going on, and it affects all of us, no matter who we are or what we do to pay the bills. We the People are debating the judiciary—its role and what features it should have. We are debating whether the judiciary should reflect our communities and shared values. We are debating whether a judge’s primary role should be deciphering the precise meaning of legal text or, alternatively, making law work and upholding justice. We are debating what qualifies someone to don the hallowed black robe. And so much more.
We joined ACS in law school (Julie at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and Kevin at Harvard Law School) because we wanted to participate in this debate, and after graduation, we founded the Tampa Lawyer Chapter because we believe our community has a lot to contribute to it.
We are interested in the role of the judiciary not only because of our careers, but also because of our personal experiences. We are both litigators, so we spend much of our time interacting with courts. Julie practices employment law at Phelps Dunbar, and Kevin is a civil rights lawyer with Berney & Sang. We are also millennials, so throughout our lives we have experienced transformative U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Raised in Jacksonville, Florida, Kevin still remembers the controversy over the 2000 presidential election and how his community reacted to Bush v. Gore. Both of us still remember celebrating Obergefell v. Hodges with friends and family. And we both remember the day the Court handed down Shelby County v. Holder, striking down part of the Voting Rights Act.
In 2015, we moved to Tampa (we’re not only colleagues but also married), and we immediately met lawyers who share our interest in the role of the judiciary. We met solo practitioners, corporate lawyers, criminal defense lawyers, prosecutors, and law clerks who are interested in discussing the judiciary and who, like us, believe that the law should be a force for improving the lives of all people. So in 2017, we founded the Tampa Lawyer Chapter.
As ACS members and chapter leaders, we are immersed in the debate about the role of the judiciary, and we are committed to providing a platform for the progressive voices in Tampa to share their views and ideas. Over the past few years, for example, we have organized talks on Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, Florida’s Federal Judicial Nominating Commission, the Florida Supreme Court, and the role of State Attorneys General.
We are grateful to ACS not only for affording our community the chance to lead the debate about the judiciary, but also for amplifying our voices.
