That would explain whether this magic is principled magic or more partisan bullshit magic.

If I had the magic power, the Republicans would hold up all Obama administration judicial nominations until Bush’s backlogged never-voted-on nominees were all confirmed and only then allow through some Obama justices.

Do we get to go back to Clinton’s nominees too?

If I had the magic power, the Republicans would hold up all Obama administration judicial nominations until Bush’s backlogged never-voted-on nominees were all confirmed and only then allow through some Obama justices.

Why have there been so few nominees?

One possibility also is that they’re flaming idiots.

As such, do NOT encourage them to speed up their process!

There are a lot of vacancies on the various Courts that (presumably) serve important purposes. The judiciary is already (according to the Judicial Conference) overworked, so causing even more stress on the system is foolish.

It seems like this administration is more about showboating their legislation and good intentions than actually making sure the government continues to function effectively at one of it’s core missions, adjudicating disputes between citizens*. It’s also possible that someone could turn this into an indictment of progressivism as a whole.

* parties works better, I’m not suggesting that only citizens should have access to the courts, but citizens sounds better.

Perhaps they are waiting for the Statute of Limitations to expire on their “youthful indiscretions”?

ArthurKirkland: Professor Kerr:I probably shouldn’t attempt sarcasm layered on sarcasm. My primary barb was aimed at Peter; a secondary barb was aimed at those who perceive the current administration to be a Threat to our Nation.Your comment was an innocent bystander.

You mean the current administration isn’t a Threat To Our Nation? Wow! I guess everyone who actually pays taxes and isn’t dependent on government is a rube. The things you can learn on this blog.

R Gould-Saltman says:

How many trolls ARE there under that bridge?

So far as I know, there is only one official one on this Web site, and I’m it.

I probably shouldn’t attempt sarcasm layered on sarcasm. My primary barb was aimed at Peter; a secondary barb was aimed at those who perceive the current administration to be a Threat to our Nation.

Your comment was an innocent bystander.

The admin is liberal though, and as indicated by its attempts to get everyone from schoolkids to artists to preach the virtues of the dear leader, it is also partisan. Even Ted Sorensen said recently the permanent campaign stuff ought to stop.

It may be that justice dept officials are taking their time in order to make sure the president picks people who are (1) very bright, (2) young, (3) willing to remain on the bench and (4) very liberal but without a paper trail that proves it. If they were smart, they would push through a big fat pay raise for fed judges to make judgeships more attractive.

If the admin thinks there is a danger of Dems losing their filibuster proof maj in the Senate, there will be a deluge of nominees, perhaps after the el next year. I realize obama is unlikely to lose in a landslide in 2012, but I bet he doesnt win many purple states next time around, ie Indiana, Virginia. It may come down to Ohio again. Something tells me that Acorn will be still be getting fed funds in 2012 and that it will very active in the buckeye state.

I would expect articles presenting liberals as angry at obama will be a common theme at the WP during the next three and a half years. Makes him look moderate.

troll_dc2: Nice try, but you get only half a point for your pun.

WHY? I thought it was rather fun – much better than ‘driveby spewer’ which was my first thought.

ChrisTS says:

Peter = Drive By Shouter.

Nice try, but you get only half a point for your pun.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by Nancecy: Where are Obama’s Judicial Nominees? http://bit.ly/5AYtD...

Can you try that again? I am not sure what you are saying about my comment, so I am not sure how to respond.

Probably also one should remember that political operatives of the ward heeler school, like Emanuel, don’t like liberal federal judges, because people with lifetime appointments don’t generate much in political contributions, and because decisions about things like school prayer tend to arouse the rubes to vote Republican.

The good news is obama will get DESTROYED in the 2012 election, and it will be a long time before an anti american socialist liberal ideologue is again in the White House.

With persuasive opponents such as Peter on the other side, how could someone of Barack Obama’s caliber avoid crushing defeat?

Aside to Prof. Kerr: I hope I am wrong in sensing a chance you are being sarcastic. Maybe you think the Threat to our Nation is something to joke about, but I believe many of those who comment here would not appreciate it.

Just so I understand, you don’t like the Obama Administration?

I’m not necessarily making a case for increasing the number of judges overall. I’m just saying that, when you have a sizeable portion of seats unfilled on a court and the court badly needs judicial manpower, it’s ridiculous not to get on the ball about it, especially when you consider that the outcome of most district court cases would likely not be genuinely affected by ideology.

Analysts say that unlike Bush, who saw judicial appointments as a way to advance a strict view of the Constitution, Obama has not sharply defined his judicial philosophy. Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, said that Republicans consider the federal courts crucial to furthering their policy aims by overturning current law, but that Obama is among Democrats who view court appointments mainly as a means of defending the legal status quo.

I have never understood why the Democrats do not see judgeships as crucial. It matters who is making the decisions, at the district-court level as well as at Supreme Court. Why are they so stupid?