The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Judge Droney Explains Politics "Plays Some Role" In Senior Status Decision
The former Second Circuit Obama appointee, who retired during the Trump Presidency, said he "had some role in the appointment of [his] successor."
In 2012, President Obama appointed Judge Christopher Droney to the Second Circuit. In 2020, when he turned 65, Judge Droney retired outright. He didn't take senior status. He was one of the few non-conservative Democratic-appointed circuit judges who stepped down, allowing President Trump to appoint his replacement. (There were several conservative Clinton appointees who stepped down over the last four years). Alison Frankel of Reuters interviewed Judge Droney, and asked him how politics factors into the decision whether to take senior status. Here is a transcript of his remarks:
FRANKEL: Judge, we've seen a rash of announcements since President Biden took office from judges saying that they're going to step down or take senior status. How much does politics come into these decisions? You were appointed to both the trial court and the appeals court by Democratic presidents. But you stepped down during a Republican administration.
DRONEY: Well, I think it plays some role, especially in the last four years because the Senate under (Majority Leader Mitch) McConnell appointed so many federal judges. But in my case, I didn't have to worry about it as much because I had some role in the appointment of my successor (William Nardini). He's a terrific judge and is a mainstream judge and not someone that I think the public would worry about.
But certainly in the last four years it's been much more political, and I think that the real reason … was (getting rid) of the requirement that there be 60 votes to confirm. All you need now is 51. So that's really what drove the train the last four years.
FRANKEL: Do you think that there were judges who held off on retiring or taking senior status after the filibuster rules changed for judicial appointments because of political considerations?
DRONEY: Sure, I know of at least one who held off for a while and she just took senior status right after the new president was sworn in.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
In other news today, dogs bark.
This like Captain Renault, when he said he was shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
I'm shocked, shocked to find politics going on in here!
PROF. BLACKMAN DISCOVERS THE SUN!
News at 11:00.
Yeah, but how many more posts can he churn out on this topic? Is there anyone here skilled enough in Blackmanology to predict an over-under on the total number.......
... on total number of comments from woke commenters deriding the non-woke prof?
If you don't like watching those on the wrong side of history be mocked by culture war victors, ask the proprietor to censor the elitists.
I judge Droney a Broney?
"I didn't have to worry about it as much because I had some role in the appointment of my successor"
When the trials start for collaborationists I think we have a slam dunk test case, convicted by his own words.
I don't understand why a judge requesting a particular person, or even a person of a particular political/ideological bent, be appointed to their position as a condition of retiring or taking senior status is not considered bribery.
A few months ago, there was an article about a judge, Michael Kanne, who agreed to retire if his friend and former clerk was appointed to his seat in his place. When the friend was removed from the list of candidates, Kanne refused to retire.
This sort of behavior seems to me like a clear case of obtaining a benefit in exchange for an official act. So why isn't anyone prosecuted for it?
There was also some similar hanky-panky around Kennedy's retirement and replacement.
As Dilan says, dogs bark.
No, there wasn't.
Are bears Catholic?
Does the pope ...
Not sure if that’s original, but it sure got a chuckle from me. Nice!
Totally stolen!
But wait, there is no such thing as Trump judges or Obama judges. Remember?
Josh, if we were to apply the same standard to your characterization of Droney's statement that you applied to the statement of dozens of scholars on the constitutionality of Trump's second impeachment trial, one would have to conclude that you're being quite intentionally misleading here.
Don't change, Prof. Blackman.
You are the future of conservative legal academia.
Thank goodness.
Ya think politics played "some" role? Captain Obvious statement of the day.