88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Tensions rise over judicial nominees
By Lydia Wheeler - 09/18/16 03:47 PM EDT
More than four dozen judicial nominees are in limbo as President Obama’s term draws to a close.
Senate Democrats are blasting their Republican colleagues for not only blocking the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, but also 53 other judges in the lower courts, calling their obstruction “unprecedented” and “irresponsible.”
“These are supposed to be nonpolitical positions,” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary, said. “I’ve been here longer than anybody else, I’ve never seen anything so irresponsible.”
In the last two years of the George W. Bush presidency, Leahy said, the Democratic majority confirmed 68 of his judges. In Obama’s last two years, the Republican majority has confirmed 22 judges.
“We put through 10 of them in September just before we recessed for the election,” Leahy said. “They’re not willing to follow the Constitution, they won’t do their job.”
The Alliance for Justice (AFJ) said Congress is on track to have the lowest number of confirmations since the session that ran from 1951 to 1952. Of Obama’s 54 judicial nominees, 25 are waiting action on the Senate floor and 29 are before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Obama added to the total last week when he put forward a nominee who would be the first Muslim American to serve as a federal judge on the U.S. District Court for D.C.
Republicans say they’ve been more than fair with judicial nominees.
“This president does not have much to gripe about because he’s had well over 40 percent of the federal judiciary,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said. “He’s probably had more judicial nominations than any president in recent history, so it isn’t that he’s been mistreated.”
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) pointed to Obama’s predecessor for a comparison.
“You look at the number of judges confirmed under George W. Bush and President Obama has been treated quite fairly,” he said.
Obama has had more judges confirmed than President Bush — 327 to 325 — but Nathaniel Gryll, AFJ's legislative counsel, called the comparison "meaningless."
“Obama has had more judges confirmed because he’s had substantially more vacancies than Bush to fill,” Gryll said. “At this point in their presidencies, Obama’s been tasked with filling approximately 60 more vacancies than Bush had faced."
Last week, as a counter to Sen. Heidi Heitkamp’s (D-N.D.) push for all district court nominees approved by committee to be confirmed, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) offered to approved a "bipartisan package of four."
Democrats refused, saying they want all or nothing.
“I think it’s completely unintended, but two of the longest waiting, highest ranking nominees are African Americans and that’s a formula we’re not going to agree to,” Heitkamp told The Hill this week. “We need the package of all of these.”
Cornyn said he’s open to confirming additional judges, but said it "depends on who they are.”
“I’ve got some judges from Texas who have been approved by Sen. [Ted] Cruz and myself and the president,” he said. “Those sorts of choices would seem to be a logical place to go, so we’ll see. I’d certainly be open to it.”
Cornyn said it’s ultimately up to the majority leader to decide whether to offer Democrats another deal. McConnell’s office would not comment on whether one is in the works.
McConnell’s Spokesman David Popp said no announcements or updates are scheduled.
Deal or no deal, Sen. Tom Udall has proposed changing the rules on confirmations to require a vote on a nominee after 180 days.
The New Mexico Democrat said his plan would force the Senate to vote now on Obama’s Supreme Court nominee and at least seven other district court judges.
“It’s pretty simple,” he said.
Tensions rise over judicial nominees
By Lydia Wheeler - 09/18/16 03:47 PM EDT
More than four dozen judicial nominees are in limbo as President Obama’s term draws to a close.
Senate Democrats are blasting their Republican colleagues for not only blocking the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, but also 53 other judges in the lower courts, calling their obstruction “unprecedented” and “irresponsible.”
“These are supposed to be nonpolitical positions,” Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary, said. “I’ve been here longer than anybody else, I’ve never seen anything so irresponsible.”
In the last two years of the George W. Bush presidency, Leahy said, the Democratic majority confirmed 68 of his judges. In Obama’s last two years, the Republican majority has confirmed 22 judges.
“We put through 10 of them in September just before we recessed for the election,” Leahy said. “They’re not willing to follow the Constitution, they won’t do their job.”
The Alliance for Justice (AFJ) said Congress is on track to have the lowest number of confirmations since the session that ran from 1951 to 1952. Of Obama’s 54 judicial nominees, 25 are waiting action on the Senate floor and 29 are before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Obama added to the total last week when he put forward a nominee who would be the first Muslim American to serve as a federal judge on the U.S. District Court for D.C.
Republicans say they’ve been more than fair with judicial nominees.
“This president does not have much to gripe about because he’s had well over 40 percent of the federal judiciary,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said. “He’s probably had more judicial nominations than any president in recent history, so it isn’t that he’s been mistreated.”
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) pointed to Obama’s predecessor for a comparison.
“You look at the number of judges confirmed under George W. Bush and President Obama has been treated quite fairly,” he said.
Obama has had more judges confirmed than President Bush — 327 to 325 — but Nathaniel Gryll, AFJ's legislative counsel, called the comparison "meaningless."
“Obama has had more judges confirmed because he’s had substantially more vacancies than Bush to fill,” Gryll said. “At this point in their presidencies, Obama’s been tasked with filling approximately 60 more vacancies than Bush had faced."
Last week, as a counter to Sen. Heidi Heitkamp’s (D-N.D.) push for all district court nominees approved by committee to be confirmed, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) offered to approved a "bipartisan package of four."
Democrats refused, saying they want all or nothing.
“I think it’s completely unintended, but two of the longest waiting, highest ranking nominees are African Americans and that’s a formula we’re not going to agree to,” Heitkamp told The Hill this week. “We need the package of all of these.”
Cornyn said he’s open to confirming additional judges, but said it "depends on who they are.”
“I’ve got some judges from Texas who have been approved by Sen. [Ted] Cruz and myself and the president,” he said. “Those sorts of choices would seem to be a logical place to go, so we’ll see. I’d certainly be open to it.”
Cornyn said it’s ultimately up to the majority leader to decide whether to offer Democrats another deal. McConnell’s office would not comment on whether one is in the works.
McConnell’s Spokesman David Popp said no announcements or updates are scheduled.
Deal or no deal, Sen. Tom Udall has proposed changing the rules on confirmations to require a vote on a nominee after 180 days.
The New Mexico Democrat said his plan would force the Senate to vote now on Obama’s Supreme Court nominee and at least seven other district court judges.
“It’s pretty simple,” he said.
Tensions rise over judicial nominees
In ten years when DT supporters are complaining about the SCOTUS your myopia will have come full circle. 