Patricia A. Millett

Limited Filibuster Reform Surrounds Patricia Millett’s Nomination

Kate Fort

WaPo article here.

The Senate voted 57 to 40, with three abstentions, to reconsider Millett’s nomination. Several procedural votes followed. The Senate parliamentarian, speaking through Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the chamber’s president pro tempore, then ruled that 60 votes are needed to cut off a filibuster and move to a final confirmation vote. Reid appealed that ruling, asking senators to decide whether it should stand.

The Democratic victory paved the way for the confirmation of Millett and two other nominees to the D.C. appeals court. All have recently been stymied by GOP filibusters, amid Republican assertions that the critical appellate court simply did not need any more judges.

Under its new rules, the Senate subsequently voted 55 to 43 Thursday afternoon to move ahead with Millett’s nomination. Two senators voted present.

Senate rules still require up to 30 hours of debate on the Millett nomination. So a final confirmation vote on the nomination is expected to be held in mid-December after the two-week Thanksgiving recess.

WaPo: Senate Blocked Millett’s Nomination

Kate Fort1 Comment

Here.

In the now standard operating procedure of the Senate to need 60 votes to do anything, the vote was 55-38 TO PROCEED. Which means the nomination is blocked.

News Coverage of Patricia Millett Senate Judiciary Confirmation Hearing

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

The video of the hearing is here.

SCOTUSBlog Profile of Supreme Court Specialists Appointed to the Federal Bench

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Interesting read, here. Profiling the Chief Justice, Sri Srinivasan, Patricia Millett, and Nina Pillard.

Supreme Court Decides Arizona v. Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona — Federal Law Preempts Arizona’s Proof of Citizenship Voting Form

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion. Congrats to Patricia Millett.

Briefs and other materials are here.

News Coverage of Yesterday’s Argument in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Adam Liptak wrote about my favorite exchange of the day:

The question for the justices was whether that state law conflicted with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which allows voters to register using a federal form that asks, “Are you a citizen of the United States?” Prospective voters must check a box yes or no, and they must sign the form, swearing that they are citizens under penalty of perjury.

Several members of the court’s conservative wing indicated that the state was free to impose additional requirements to make sure only citizens vote.

Justice Antonin Scalia said the federal form was inadequate. “So it’s under oath,” he said. “Big deal. If you’re willing to violate the voting laws, I suppose you’re willing to violate the perjury laws.”

“Under oath,” he added, “is not proof at all. It’s just a statement.”

Patricia A. Millett, a lawyer for several groups challenging the Arizona law, responded that “statements under oath in criminal cases are proof beyond a reasonable doubt” sufficient to lead to the death penalty.

She added that tens of thousands of people had been rejected from the registration rolls because of the Arizona law, though there was no evidence that they were not citizens.

Briefs and other materials are here.