patrick mcneil (he/him)
@patrickryne.bsky.social
civil and human rights advocate, writer/editor 🏳️🌈
writing: nominationnotes.com
email: [email protected]
signal: patrickryne.87
writing: nominationnotes.com
email: [email protected]
signal: patrickryne.87
Reposted by patrick mcneil (he/him)
NEW: The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a nominations hearing for next Wednesday.
I took a look at new @afj.org resources about some of the nominees, including Anna St. John and Andrew Davis — and their anti-civil rights records are troubling. nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...
I took a look at new @afj.org resources about some of the nominees, including Anna St. John and Andrew Davis — and their anti-civil rights records are troubling. nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...
Senate Judiciary Committee to consider anti-civil rights judicial nominees next week
It’s the first nominations hearing of the year. Democrats need to show up.
nominationnotes.substack.com
January 28, 2026 at 6:23 PM
NEW: The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a nominations hearing for next Wednesday.
I took a look at new @afj.org resources about some of the nominees, including Anna St. John and Andrew Davis — and their anti-civil rights records are troubling. nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...
I took a look at new @afj.org resources about some of the nominees, including Anna St. John and Andrew Davis — and their anti-civil rights records are troubling. nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...
NEW: The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a nominations hearing for next Wednesday.
I took a look at new @afj.org resources about some of the nominees, including Anna St. John and Andrew Davis — and their anti-civil rights records are troubling. nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...
I took a look at new @afj.org resources about some of the nominees, including Anna St. John and Andrew Davis — and their anti-civil rights records are troubling. nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...
Senate Judiciary Committee to consider anti-civil rights judicial nominees next week
It’s the first nominations hearing of the year. Democrats need to show up.
nominationnotes.substack.com
January 28, 2026 at 6:23 PM
NEW: The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a nominations hearing for next Wednesday.
I took a look at new @afj.org resources about some of the nominees, including Anna St. John and Andrew Davis — and their anti-civil rights records are troubling. nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...
I took a look at new @afj.org resources about some of the nominees, including Anna St. John and Andrew Davis — and their anti-civil rights records are troubling. nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...
Nomination watch: Trump hasn't publicly announced any judicial nominees in three weeks. He'll need to nominate more by tomorrow if the Senate Judiciary Committee is planning to hold a hearing on February 25 (following the Senate's Presidents Day recess).
Expecting a hearing next Wednesday (2/4).
Expecting a hearing next Wednesday (2/4).
January 28, 2026 at 2:00 AM
Nomination watch: Trump hasn't publicly announced any judicial nominees in three weeks. He'll need to nominate more by tomorrow if the Senate Judiciary Committee is planning to hold a hearing on February 25 (following the Senate's Presidents Day recess).
Expecting a hearing next Wednesday (2/4).
Expecting a hearing next Wednesday (2/4).
Reposted by patrick mcneil (he/him)
Read my thread about the analysis I published this morning (and read the analysis too, of course).
NEW: I examined how all 10 @judiciarydems.senate.gov are engaging on judicial nominations.
What happens in the committee sets the tone for full Senate consideration of judicial nominees — and how committee members show up throughout this process matters. nominationnotes.substack.com/p/analysis-h...
What happens in the committee sets the tone for full Senate consideration of judicial nominees — and how committee members show up throughout this process matters. nominationnotes.substack.com/p/analysis-h...
Analysis: How Senate Judiciary Democrats are showing up on judicial nominations
A look at senators’ engagement related to hearings, QFRs, markups, and committee votes.
nominationnotes.substack.com
January 27, 2026 at 8:31 PM
Read my thread about the analysis I published this morning (and read the analysis too, of course).
The Senate just adjourned. No cloture was filed on any judicial nominations, so it looks like (unless the Senate is in session Friday/Saturday) there will be no other lifetime judges confirmed in January.
Only one, Alexander Van Hook, was confirmed this month, with seven Democrats voting in favor.
Only one, Alexander Van Hook, was confirmed this month, with seven Democrats voting in favor.
January 27, 2026 at 11:33 PM
The Senate just adjourned. No cloture was filed on any judicial nominations, so it looks like (unless the Senate is in session Friday/Saturday) there will be no other lifetime judges confirmed in January.
Only one, Alexander Van Hook, was confirmed this month, with seven Democrats voting in favor.
Only one, Alexander Van Hook, was confirmed this month, with seven Democrats voting in favor.
The Senate is taking a procedural vote now on S.3627, the "Pregnant Students’ Rights Act" — an anti-abortion bill that "would not address the key barriers to pregnant students’ educational attainment, but would instead further shame and stigmatize people for their pregnancy outcomes," per @nwlc.org.
January 27, 2026 at 10:30 PM
The Senate is taking a procedural vote now on S.3627, the "Pregnant Students’ Rights Act" — an anti-abortion bill that "would not address the key barriers to pregnant students’ educational attainment, but would instead further shame and stigmatize people for their pregnancy outcomes," per @nwlc.org.
Read my thread about the analysis I published this morning (and read the analysis too, of course).
NEW: I examined how all 10 @judiciarydems.senate.gov are engaging on judicial nominations.
What happens in the committee sets the tone for full Senate consideration of judicial nominees — and how committee members show up throughout this process matters. nominationnotes.substack.com/p/analysis-h...
What happens in the committee sets the tone for full Senate consideration of judicial nominees — and how committee members show up throughout this process matters. nominationnotes.substack.com/p/analysis-h...
Analysis: How Senate Judiciary Democrats are showing up on judicial nominations
A look at senators’ engagement related to hearings, QFRs, markups, and committee votes.
nominationnotes.substack.com
January 27, 2026 at 8:31 PM
Read my thread about the analysis I published this morning (and read the analysis too, of course).
NEW: I examined how all 10 @judiciarydems.senate.gov are engaging on judicial nominations.
What happens in the committee sets the tone for full Senate consideration of judicial nominees — and how committee members show up throughout this process matters. nominationnotes.substack.com/p/analysis-h...
What happens in the committee sets the tone for full Senate consideration of judicial nominees — and how committee members show up throughout this process matters. nominationnotes.substack.com/p/analysis-h...
Analysis: How Senate Judiciary Democrats are showing up on judicial nominations
A look at senators’ engagement related to hearings, QFRs, markups, and committee votes.
nominationnotes.substack.com
January 27, 2026 at 3:15 PM
NEW: I examined how all 10 @judiciarydems.senate.gov are engaging on judicial nominations.
What happens in the committee sets the tone for full Senate consideration of judicial nominees — and how committee members show up throughout this process matters. nominationnotes.substack.com/p/analysis-h...
What happens in the committee sets the tone for full Senate consideration of judicial nominees — and how committee members show up throughout this process matters. nominationnotes.substack.com/p/analysis-h...
👀
New: In a memo to federal judges nationwide, Judge Robert Conrad, the head of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, said the courts only have enough cash on hand from to fully sustain paid operations through February 4 if a partial government shutdown occurs.
January 26, 2026 at 11:15 PM
👀
Reposted by patrick mcneil (he/him)
Absolutely reprehensible that AG Bondi is offering ICE stand down in exchange for access to voting rolls. Outrageous and disgusting. It shows ICE is in Minneapolis is not for law enforcement purposes. Instead it’s a way to stir up shit in blue states and extort them.
In the wake of another fatal shooting in Minneapolis.
AG Pam Bondi sends Gov. Walz a letter today making several asks including:
"Allow DOJ Civil Rights division access to state voter rolls"
AG Pam Bondi sends Gov. Walz a letter today making several asks including:
"Allow DOJ Civil Rights division access to state voter rolls"
January 25, 2026 at 2:21 AM
Absolutely reprehensible that AG Bondi is offering ICE stand down in exchange for access to voting rolls. Outrageous and disgusting. It shows ICE is in Minneapolis is not for law enforcement purposes. Instead it’s a way to stir up shit in blue states and extort them.
Reposted by patrick mcneil (he/him)
As tens of thousands across America protest the violence that ICE sows with impunity, federal agents shot and killed another person in Minneapolis today.
ICE terrorizes our cities. ICE puts us all in danger. Abolish ICE.
January 24, 2026 at 6:00 PM
As tens of thousands across America protest the violence that ICE sows with impunity, federal agents shot and killed another person in Minneapolis today.
ICE terrorizes our cities. ICE puts us all in danger. Abolish ICE.
Reposted by patrick mcneil (he/him)
Yesterday, 50,000 Minnesotans peacefully protested to stop the terror being inflicted on our community. Today, ICE shot and likely killed another constitutional observer on the street. I can’t say this clearly enough: Congress has to stop this. The government is killing us. Congress has to act.
January 24, 2026 at 4:29 PM
Yesterday, 50,000 Minnesotans peacefully protested to stop the terror being inflicted on our community. Today, ICE shot and likely killed another constitutional observer on the street. I can’t say this clearly enough: Congress has to stop this. The government is killing us. Congress has to act.
Reposted by patrick mcneil (he/him)
Another day, another outrage; ICE under Trump is going to deport dozens of people to Iran, including two gay men previously arrested by the regime who face the death penalty for their orientation, and despite the ongoing crackdowns which have killed thousands.
An administration of total inhumanity.
An administration of total inhumanity.
January 23, 2026 at 1:25 PM
Another day, another outrage; ICE under Trump is going to deport dozens of people to Iran, including two gay men previously arrested by the regime who face the death penalty for their orientation, and despite the ongoing crackdowns which have killed thousands.
An administration of total inhumanity.
An administration of total inhumanity.
Reposted by patrick mcneil (he/him)
ICYMI: Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats can ask Trump's judicial nominees written questions for the record — but many aren't engaging in the process as much as they should be.
Booker has asked 1,500+ questions. Welch has only asked 19. My analysis: nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...
Booker has asked 1,500+ questions. Welch has only asked 19. My analysis: nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...
Senate Judiciary Democrats can ask judicial nominees questions in writing. Their engagement in that process has varied widely.
Some senators have asked 1,000+ questions. Others have asked very few.
nominationnotes.substack.com
January 22, 2026 at 4:37 PM
ICYMI: Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats can ask Trump's judicial nominees written questions for the record — but many aren't engaging in the process as much as they should be.
Booker has asked 1,500+ questions. Welch has only asked 19. My analysis: nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...
Booker has asked 1,500+ questions. Welch has only asked 19. My analysis: nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...
Your periodic reminder that Trump is still nominating judges to serve FOR LIFE on the federal bench, where they have immense power to impact the civil and human rights of all people in America — and where he expects they will be loyal to him and his white supremacist agenda above all else.
January 23, 2026 at 12:40 AM
Your periodic reminder that Trump is still nominating judges to serve FOR LIFE on the federal bench, where they have immense power to impact the civil and human rights of all people in America — and where he expects they will be loyal to him and his white supremacist agenda above all else.
ICYMI: Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats can ask Trump's judicial nominees written questions for the record — but many aren't engaging in the process as much as they should be.
Booker has asked 1,500+ questions. Welch has only asked 19. My analysis: nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...
Booker has asked 1,500+ questions. Welch has only asked 19. My analysis: nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...
Senate Judiciary Democrats can ask judicial nominees questions in writing. Their engagement in that process has varied widely.
Some senators have asked 1,000+ questions. Others have asked very few.
nominationnotes.substack.com
January 22, 2026 at 4:37 PM
ICYMI: Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats can ask Trump's judicial nominees written questions for the record — but many aren't engaging in the process as much as they should be.
Booker has asked 1,500+ questions. Welch has only asked 19. My analysis: nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...
Booker has asked 1,500+ questions. Welch has only asked 19. My analysis: nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...
Today is the 53rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade. On Monday, the Senate will vote on an anti-abortion bill that "would not address the key barriers to pregnant students’ educational attainment, but would instead further shame and stigmatize people for their pregnancy outcomes," according to @nwlc.org.
The Senate will convene for business at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, January 26th. At approximately 5:30 p.m. the Senate will vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S.3627, Pregnant Students’ Rights Act.
January 22, 2026 at 4:07 PM
Today is the 53rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade. On Monday, the Senate will vote on an anti-abortion bill that "would not address the key barriers to pregnant students’ educational attainment, but would instead further shame and stigmatize people for their pregnancy outcomes," according to @nwlc.org.
Reposted by patrick mcneil (he/him)
Why are some Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee barely asking any written questions for the record (QFRs) of Trump's extreme nominees for lifetime federal judgeships? nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...
January 21, 2026 at 5:37 PM
Why are some Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee barely asking any written questions for the record (QFRs) of Trump's extreme nominees for lifetime federal judgeships? nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...
"Justices across the board were skeptical of all three points, and...questioned whether the Trump administration could show it would face irreparable harm necessary to get the 'emergency' relief sought here, what the public interest is, or even why the case was being rushed forward in this way."
NEW: DOJ's defense of Trump's Fed firing effort falls flat at SCOTUS.
Fed Governor Lisa Cook looks safe in her job for now. No justice was eager to back Solicitor General John Sauer's arguments for Trump on Wednesday.
Today, at Law Dork:
Fed Governor Lisa Cook looks safe in her job for now. No justice was eager to back Solicitor General John Sauer's arguments for Trump on Wednesday.
Today, at Law Dork:
DOJ's defense of Trump's Fed firing effort falls flat at SCOTUS
Fed Governor Lisa Cook looks safe in her job for now. No justice was eager to back Solicitor General John Sauer's arguments for Trump on Wednesday.
www.lawdork.com
January 21, 2026 at 10:51 PM
"Justices across the board were skeptical of all three points, and...questioned whether the Trump administration could show it would face irreparable harm necessary to get the 'emergency' relief sought here, what the public interest is, or even why the case was being rushed forward in this way."
Why are some Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee barely asking any written questions for the record (QFRs) of Trump's extreme nominees for lifetime federal judgeships? nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...
January 21, 2026 at 5:37 PM
Why are some Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee barely asking any written questions for the record (QFRs) of Trump's extreme nominees for lifetime federal judgeships? nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...
JOHNSON: “Impeachment…is an extreme measure, but extreme times call for extreme measures, and I think some of these judges have gotten so far outside the bounds of where they're supposed to operate, it would not be…a bad thing for Congress...to make an example of some of these egregious abuses.”
January 21, 2026 at 4:02 PM
JOHNSON: “Impeachment…is an extreme measure, but extreme times call for extreme measures, and I think some of these judges have gotten so far outside the bounds of where they're supposed to operate, it would not be…a bad thing for Congress...to make an example of some of these egregious abuses.”
Reposted by patrick mcneil (he/him)
I don’t expect this to come up at oral argument today, but the Lisa Cook case is emblematic of the many Black women leaders who have been slandered, investigated, or dismissed without cause—and who have not been given an opportunity to clear up their names in a public forum.
Until today.
Until today.
January 21, 2026 at 3:27 PM
I don’t expect this to come up at oral argument today, but the Lisa Cook case is emblematic of the many Black women leaders who have been slandered, investigated, or dismissed without cause—and who have not been given an opportunity to clear up their names in a public forum.
Until today.
Until today.
Meanwhile, every single one of his judicial nominees refuses to say that Trump lost, or that Biden won, the 2020 election.
Big flag: Trump says "people will soon be prosecuted" for their roles in the 2020 election. He says the election was "rigged." It was not rigged. But his threat should be taken seriously.
January 21, 2026 at 3:05 PM
Meanwhile, every single one of his judicial nominees refuses to say that Trump lost, or that Biden won, the 2020 election.
Reposted by patrick mcneil (he/him)
“Trump’s latest nominees have egregious records filled with attacks on democracy and civil rights, but it’s also clear they’re expected to pass a loyalty test." – Christine Chen Zinner, AFJ Federal Research and Advocacy Director nominationnotes.substack.com/p/we-have-to...
“We have to call out everything”: One year into Trump 2.0, fair courts advocates chart the path forward
Trump is still appointing judges — and advocacy organizations are still fighting back.
nominationnotes.substack.com
January 20, 2026 at 9:18 PM
“Trump’s latest nominees have egregious records filled with attacks on democracy and civil rights, but it’s also clear they’re expected to pass a loyalty test." – Christine Chen Zinner, AFJ Federal Research and Advocacy Director nominationnotes.substack.com/p/we-have-to...
NEW: Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats can ask Trump's judicial nominees written questions for the record — but many aren't engaging in the process as much as they should be.
Booker has asked 1,500+ questions. Welch has only asked 19. My new analysis: nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...
Booker has asked 1,500+ questions. Welch has only asked 19. My new analysis: nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...
Senate Judiciary Democrats can ask judicial nominees questions in writing. Their engagement in that process has varied widely.
Some senators have asked 1,000+ questions. Others have asked very few.
nominationnotes.substack.com
January 21, 2026 at 1:26 AM
NEW: Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats can ask Trump's judicial nominees written questions for the record — but many aren't engaging in the process as much as they should be.
Booker has asked 1,500+ questions. Welch has only asked 19. My new analysis: nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...
Booker has asked 1,500+ questions. Welch has only asked 19. My new analysis: nominationnotes.substack.com/p/senate-jud...