Tuesday, December 03, 2019

Who is Andrew Brasher?

So who is Andrew Brasher, the new 11th Circuit nominee. The Vetting Room has the details here.  Below is the introduction and conclusion, but there is quite a bit of interesting information in the entire post, which you should check out.
Six months ago, Judge Andrew Brasher was narrowly confirmed to be a U.S. District Court Judge.  Now, the 38-year-old Brasher is ready to move on from the position to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Background
Andrew Lynn Brasher was born in Milan, TN on May 20, 1981.  Brasher moved to Alabama to attend Samford University, a private Christian University in Homewood, where he graduated summa cum laude in 2002.[1]  Brasher went on to Harvard Law School, graduating cum laude in 2006.
Upon graduation, Brasher clerked for Judge William Pryor on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.[2]  He then joined the Birmingham office of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP as an Associate.
In 2011, Brasher was appointed by Luther Strange, then the Attorney General of Alabama, to be Deputy Solicitor General.  Brasher served in that capacity until 2014 when he was appointed Solicitor General of Alabama.[3] 
In April 2018, Brasher was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, filling a longstanding vacancy opened by the resignation of Judge Mark Fuller.  Brasher was confirmed by the Senate in a 52-47 vote on May 1, 2019, and has served on the Middle District since then.
***
Overall Assessment
Despite Brasher’s significant experience with litigation, his youth and strongly conservative writings and experience made him a controversial nominee at the district court level and caused his nomination to sit for over a year before confirmation by a narrow vote.  Now, as an appellate nominee, Brasher may well have a faster confirmation, simply because Republicans tend to prioritize appellate nominees.  Nonetheless, Brasher’s brief tenure as a district court judge, as well as his youth and conservative ideology, is likely to make him a controversial nominee.

at

12 comments:

  1. Anonymous8:37 AM

    Not a whiff of scandal or evidence that any of his work was affected by his youth or conservative ideology. Which, ipso facto, makes him "controversial."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous9:25 AM

    Your welcome.

    -The Federalist Society

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous10:11 AM

    8:37:
    Here are just some of the reasons he is controversial:

    His defense of blatantly racial gerrymandering
    His support of attacks on LGBTQ community (amici briefs supporting straight only adoptions, straight only marriages, refusals to provide services or goods to LGBTQ individuals).
    His refusal to say that Brown v. Board of Education was properly decided

    So yeah, if you are a straight, white, Christian, conservative male (or at least passing as straight and Christian)you may not see him as controversial. Everyone else who fears having an ideologue like him on the federal bench does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5:51 PM

      1011
      I agree "blatantly racial" behavior like affirmative action must not be tolerated. Amen brother!

      Delete
  4. Anonymous11:07 AM

    Thank you 10:11. Finally some truth here.

    At least Carnes goes senior.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rumpole11:51 AM

    But he has six months of trial experience. Isn’t that enough?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous11:54 AM

    More than enough. In fact we like our candidates to have less. Why waste time in trial. Better off attending our symposia. Your welcome.

    -The Federalist Society

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous3:04 PM

    Yes, Rumpole, apparently it is. Justices Kagan and Breyer have zero (although Kagan handled one summary judgment hearing).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous4:07 PM

    Thank you, 3:04 PM. I would also point out that several other prominent appellate judges -- Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner come to mind -- did not have trial experience before becoming judges. Although trial experience is certainly important, and maybe even necessary, for trial judges, it is not for appellate judges. Snide remarks reflect only the ignorance of the person making them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous4:27 PM

    Let's put Kagan, Breyer, Easterbrook, and Posner's pre-judicial resumes next to Brasher's and see if those are apt comparators. A willingness to defend any Trump decision reflects your ignorance. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous5:17 PM

    Please do, 4:27 PM. You'll see that Easterbrook was 35 when he was appointed and Posner was 42. (I'll add a few other former and current appellate judges: Starr was 36, Wilkinson was 39, Kozinski was 34, Edith Jones was 36.)

    You don't like Brasher because he's conservative. A perceived lack of trial experience is not the reason (and if it is, then you don't know much about appellate judges or judging).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous10:31 AM

    Memo

    To: Doug Collins, US Rep. GA

    From: The Federalist Society

    Dear Sir,

    You said yesterday,"I think we just put in the jury pool the Founding Fathers - and said, 'What would they think?' snapped Collins. "I don't think we have any idea what they would think with all due respect." Please cease and desist.

    You are giving away the game. For years, we have sold the story that we know what the Framers intended to justify our current policy positions. By publicly "coming clean" you are putting all our precious arguments in jeopardy. Please stop. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete