It looks as if the Senate will finally confirm Duke Law School professor Christopher Schroeder to head the Office of Legal Policy in the Department of Justice. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved his nomination for the second time yesterday with substantial Republican support. The Committee vote was 16-3, and both Senators Sessions and Hatch voiced their support for his confirmation.
Schroeder’s confirmation will be good news for the Obama Administration. He is a tremendously intelligent and accomplished scholar who also has significant executive branch experience. His confirmation should also help with the vetting of potential judicial nominees, a task traditionally delegated to OLP within the Justice Department, and may help the Administration pick up the pace of judicial nominations.
The news does not appear as good for two other Justice Department nominees. The committee approved Mary Smith’s nomination to head the tax division by a party line vote and consideration of Dawn Johnsen for the Office of Legal Counsel was postponed. Johnsen’s confirmation could continue to face particular difficulty, in part because she does not have universal support within the Democratic caucus. At least one Democratic Senator, Ben Nelson, has said he opposes her for the job. I previously blogged on the Johnsen nomination here.
ruuffles says:
At least one Republican Senator, Dick Lugar, has said he supports her for the job.
February 5, 2010, 10:30 amHans Bader says:
What was the controversy about Schroeder? He seems well-qualified for the position.
February 5, 2010, 10:50 amSyd Henderson says:
Johnson seems well-qualified, too. The criticism of Mary Smith is lack of experience.
February 5, 2010, 11:23 amMartinned says:
Hang on, is this still someone from the people who were nominated by the president upon taking office? If so: Huh?
February 5, 2010, 11:37 ambyomtov says:
Martinned,
Hang on, is this still someone from the people who were nominated by the president upon taking office? If so: Huh?
According to the linked article, he was nominated in May, 2009.
Hans Bader,
What was the controversy about Schroeder? He seems well-qualified for the position.
What makes you think there needs to be a controversy for the GOP to block an Obama nomination? They’d block Solomon himself.
February 5, 2010, 11:52 amzuch says:
Prof. Adler:
Ben Nelson is not a Democratic Senator. ;-)
“I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.” — Will Rogers
Can you imagine any Republican Senator doing such a thing? Even the “maverick” John McCain, under pressure from Hayworth, is acting like a good member of the cadres lately.
Cheers,
February 5, 2010, 12:14 pmDave N. says:
Or, as Republicans commonly complained during the last administration:
I am opposed to filibusters of nominations regardless of party, but I also believe in intellectual honesty.
February 5, 2010, 12:15 pmDave N. says:
It is looking increasingly likely that after the 2012 election he won’t be any kind of Senator at all.
February 5, 2010, 12:24 pmJonathan H. Adler says:
Hans –
There is no question whatsoever that Schroeder is qualified for the job. As I understand it, there were two complaints raised about Schroeder’s nomination (neither of which I find particularly compelling):
1) He has written articles critical of cost-benefit analysis(e.g. here), and might have some influence on how/whether CBA’s are conducted.
2) He has expressed support for “empathy” as a qualification for judicial nominations, and would be in a position to advance this view at OLP.
Fortunately, the “controversy,” such as it was, appears over and he will be confirmed.
JHA
February 5, 2010, 12:50 pmzuch says:
And possibly Blanche Lincoln as well. There’s a message somewhere in there, I think.
It’s hard to sell yourself as a Republican when up against a true believer. A fair number of people will say, “why settle for less than the real deal, as long as I’m going that way?” Those that try this lack even the virtue of earnestness. Which may be something that McCain should think about….
Cheers,
February 5, 2010, 1:55 pmSenate Set to Confirm Schroeder | Liberal Whoppers says:
[...] Senate Set to Confirm Schroeder [...]
February 5, 2010, 3:12 pmlonetown says:
I would think anything from Duke Law waould be tainted wiht the stench of Dukes dishonest behavior in the recent scandal.
but i guess if we took that approach no one would be appointed anywhere! nevermind.
February 5, 2010, 3:53 pmNunzio says:
Isn’t Johnsen married to Lee Hamilton’s nephew?
Maybe the Repubs are just sticking it to Lee. What does Bayh have to say about her nomination? A full-throated endorsement or not.
February 5, 2010, 4:15 pmRPT says:
He was nominated by president Obama. That’s all it takes. Qualifications are irrelevant.
February 5, 2010, 4:30 pmDave N. says:
RPT,
Yes, that makes total sense, given that most of Obama’s picks have been confirmed without controvery.
February 5, 2010, 5:12 pmRPT says:
Dave:
Thanks for the reminder of just how well Obama has done in this regard. Most of his nominees have indeed gotten their up or down vote? Perhaps you need to keep up on the news, or check the Sen. Shelby thread.
February 5, 2010, 5:15 pmDave N. says:
RPT,
Ed O’Keefe at the Washington Post claims “Thursday’s confirmation votes keep the Obama administration relatively on par with the nomination pace of the Bush and Clinton administrations.” (O’Keefe wrote this on December 24, 2009).
Also according to the Washington Post, President Obama has 515 positions to fill that require Senate confirmation (this tally excludes Ambassadors, federal marshals, and U.S. Attorneys). 306 people have been confirmed. There are 88 nominations pending Senate confirmation.
Apparently, you are good at spouting talking points but your Google skills are lacking.
February 5, 2010, 5:54 pmOren says:
Yes, because actions of university administrators are indicative of unanimous consent of the faculty.
If this were the case, my school would do things very different indeed!
February 5, 2010, 10:59 pmOren says:
It’s genuinely good to hear when things aren’t getting worse in DC.
February 5, 2010, 11:15 pmzuch says:
Of course, he said this without actually giving numbers for comparison.
Cheers,
February 6, 2010, 2:09 amDave N. says:
zuch,
If you read the SECOND link I provided, the Washington Post has a confirmation watch, which was dated, um, Friday — that showed that the overwhelming majority of Obama nominations have been confirmed, despite the left talking point to the contrary.
I suggest you take your criticism up with that right-wing rag, the Washington Post, if you have a problem with its analysis. I would also note that RPT made an assertion of fact and I responded to it. If you (or he) doubt the Washington Post’s assertion to the contrary, then I suggest you have the burden of demonstrating it is wrong.
February 6, 2010, 11:36 amD says:
Maybe I didn’t pay attention as well to the mid-level appointee process in 2002, but we’re over a year into the presidency and more than 84 executive appointments are being held up still?
Granted – there is an ebb and flow, new people nominated at any time and new positions – I’m just suggesting there is a backlog.
February 6, 2010, 11:38 amzuch says:
Three out of four is not exactly “overwhelming” (and certainly is not a great way to run a country). But I was talking about number for comparison (you know, that word I highlighted for you, “relatively”…). You know, like numbers from the other recent presidents as well. The telling part is that the number confirmed is either staying the same or growing, one year in.
The WaPo’s editorial (and commentary) pages have trended right wing in recent years. Do a roster of columnists, and you’ll see it suffuse with conservatives. And the editorial board is right-leaning as well in a lot of ways.
Cheers,
February 6, 2010, 12:34 pmDave N. says:
zuch,
If you have evidence the numbers are wrong, “relatively” or not, then put up. Find your own source and provide a link. I have provided a linked source. You have provided sneers. Which means I have presented “evidence” and you have spewed talking points.
Cheers yourself,
February 6, 2010, 8:22 pmzuch says:
No. There are no “numbers [to be] wrong”. That’s the freakin’ problem here. If O’Keefe (or you, indirectly) make the assertion that the numbers are “relatively” on par with past administrations, the BoP is on you (collectively) to provide the actual numbers. Otherwise, I can just dismiss what you two say as baseless assertion.
Cheers,
February 6, 2010, 9:38 pmDave N. says:
zuch,
The Confirmation Watch has very specific numbers. If you want to assert those numbers do not corrolate to what O’Keefe states (you know, the whole drawing conclusions based on data thing), then put up. You haven’t — largely because I suspect you can’t.
February 6, 2010, 10:11 pmzuch says:
They have numbers for Obama only (which show that the number of unconfirmed nominees has been either steady or growing in recent months, which ought to be a disturbing observation).
No numbers for comparison of the same statistic for previous presidents.
IOW, you don’t have any figures that show that the numbers are “relatively” on par with past administrations. Which was my complaint.
Does the word “comparison” have too many syllables for you?
Cheers,
February 8, 2010, 2:32 am