Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Nominations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Joint courts committee interviews dozens of judicial nominees; nominees emphasize public service, family law and behavioral‑health dockets
Summary
The joint Senate/House courts meeting heard more than 40 candidates for circuit, general district and juvenile and domestic relations benches across Virginia; several nominees highlighted family‑court experience, veterans and behavioral health dockets, and community service.
The joint courts meeting featured interviews with scores of nominees seeking appointments or elevations to Virginia circuit courts, general district courts and juvenile and domestic relations (JDR) courts.
Nominees repeatedly framed judicial service as public service. "I look at this job as a continuation of that service to my community," said Ethan Stewart, a nominee for a JDR judgeship who described court‑appointed criminal defense and guardian ad litem work in his home circuit. Susan Moore, nominated to fill a General District Court vacancy in the 20th judicial district, was presented as the delegation's unanimous pick and noted longstanding nonprofit and community involvement.
Several nominees described experience tied to family and juvenile dockets. Christina Slate said her career "puts me [in] a natural progression for this particular judgeship," citing years of family law, guardian ad litem and child‑support work for a JDR seat. Other candidates emphasized specialized dockets: Adam Krischner and others cited behavioral health and veterans dockets; Judge Corey Smith highlighted launching Hampton's first behavioral‑health docket while on general district court.
Delegations frequently introduced nominees as unanimous local picks or bar association recommendations; multiple speakers praised candidates' community reputations and trial experience. Nominees with prosecutorial, defense and private‑practice backgrounds described the mix of experiences they would bring to the bench.
The committee also heard personal details relevant to candidates' service: several said they grew up in the communities they want to serve; others explained accessibility or health accommodations that shape where they can sit. For example, a nominee described reliance on a powered wheelchair and noted some courthouses are easier to access than others.
The session included substitute judge experience as a recurring credential: multiple nominees noted substitute‑judge practice across several jurisdictions. Delegates and senators often closed remarks with personal endorsements and were careful to call out local bar or delegation unanimity where it occurred.
The meeting did not resolve all nominations; the committee moved to block votes later in the session to certify many judges and retired judges for recall (see vote summary).
