what eye thynk: This pattern of denying the President his right to fill empty federal judgeships has become a habit, if not a Republican crusade. In an article in Reuters near the end of 2012, Joan Biskupic wrote:
"Obama's 30 appointees have generally been moderates who mainly served on lower courts and were selected in consultation with Republican senators. The pattern contrasts with Obama's Republican predecessors, dating back to Ronald Reagan, who quickly put forth prominent young conservatives, many of whom came from academia and had past political experience.
Notably, President Obama has not added a single judge to the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit...He is about to become the first president in at least half a century to finish a full term without an appointment to the bench known as the nation's second highest."When President Obama took office, there were two vacant seats on the 11 member D.C. Circuit. During the President's first term of office, two more judges retired, leaving the court four members short, but votes on presidential nominees continued to be either delayed or denied. Finally, in the Spring of 2013, one of those vacant seats was filled. Sri Srinivasan's confirmation still left this, the second most important federal court in the country, short three members.
In June of this year, the President named three nominees to fill those vacant seats. On November 1, Senate Republicans used the filibuster rule to deny confirmation to nominee Patricia Ann Millett and again on November 12 to deny Nina Pillard. Nominee Robert Wilkins is still waiting for his vote; but it is expected to end the same way.
Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is leading a faction that wants to reduce the number of seats on the court. He contends that there are not enough cases to justify an eleven member circuit. He doesn't seem to be able to explain how the court needed eleven members under W, but eight is plenty under Obama, since the number of cases presented each year has remained steady and especially since six D.C. Circuit judges who are officially retired continue to work in rotation in order to keep the court's caseload from being overloaded. Five of those six retired-but-still-on-the-payroll judges just happen to be Republican appointees.
Perhaps a more honest explanation for this continued Republican obstructionism can be found in the words of Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) who recently accused President Obama of "trying to pack the court" and of "tilt(ing) the court ideologically in a way that favors the...agenda of the Obama administration".
Mr. Cornyn and his fellow Republicans seem to be having trouble understanding (or accepting?) that part of the President's job is to nominate judges to sit on federal courts; and, by winning the presidential election, the President has the right to nominate those who reflect his and his party's beliefs--as W did during his eight years in the top seat when he nominated three conservative-minded judges to the same circuit, all three of whom were confirmed with a simple majority vote and all three of whom are still sitting judges. Apparently Mr. Cornyn believes that "pack(ing) the court" with ideologically conservative judges is fine--it's only liberal ideology that must be reined in.
Senate Democrats are once again talking about changing their filibuster rule to make the votes on judgeship nominees a straight up and down majority vote. One Republican Senator said they should go ahead and try it, but warned that when Republicans regain the majority they will appoint conservative judges. (As will be their right! The same right they are currently determined to deny President Obama.)
President Obama has not tried to "pack the court" with far left liberals. He has, as Reuters pointed out, chosen moderate minded nominees. Several of the rejected nominees were part of Republican White Houses--Patricia Ann Millett in particular served in the U.S. Justice Department under H.W. Bush and as Assistant to the Solicitor General under W. Bush--so I have to think that it is not the nominees that appalls Republicans, but the man who nominated them.
No comments:
Post a Comment