The Senate has confirmed President Bush's appellate judicial nominees at an amazingly slow rate. Despite pledges to confirm three additional nominees before Memorial Day, the Senate has only confirmed two nominees all year, while numerous well-qualified nominees sit and wait. By comparison, a Republican Senate confirmed eight of President Clinton's appellate nominees during his last year in office. Since January 2007, the Senate has confirmed eight appellate nominees, whereas a Republican Senate confirmed fifteen during President Clinton's last two year.
It's certainly possible that the Senate rush several nominees through over the summer, but even with such an effort, this Congress will stand out for its snail-like pace. So it should be no surprise that Republicans are upset. Senator Mitch McConnell, in particular, has had enough.
At the beginning of this Congress, the Majority said it would meet or exceed the average of 17 circuit court nominees that have been confirmed in prior Congresses; yet it has only confirmed eight circuit court judges thus far. More disturbing, the Chairman of the Committee recently threatened to shut down the confirmation process completely, an action that would break yet another historical precedent.Certainly one reason for Senate Democrats to stall on President Bush's nominees is their hope to leave seats open that could be filled by a President Obama. Even so, I find the level of intransigence a bit surprising. Among other things, the unprecedented slowdown gift wraps an issue for Senator McCain. McCain needs help motivating the conservative base, and there are few issues that resonate among such groups like judicial nominations. All it would take to disarm the issue would be to confirm a handful of high-profile, exceedingly qualified nominees, such as Peter Keisler, who have widespread support.The Majority said it would treat Republican senate delegations fairly; yet for months, the Democratic Majority has only worked on circuit court nominees from states with a Democratic senator.
The Majority said it would do its ‘utmost,’ said it would do ‘everything’ possible, said it would do ‘everything within its power’ to confirm three more circuit court nominees by the Memorial Day recess; yet it only confirmed one nominee. Moreover, it appears the Majority did not seriously attempt to honor its commitment. Indeed, since that deadline passed almost two weeks ago, the Democratic Majority has still failed to confirm more circuit court nominees.
The Democratic Majority has refused to honor its commitments. It apparently believes that commitments do not matter in the United States Senate, and that actions do not have consequences.
As longtime readers know, I also worry that the unprecedented intransigence risks further exacerbation of political conflict over judicial nominations. While I do not expect Republican Senators to filibuster or otherwise obstruct a President Obama's nominees — and I will not support such efforts — such tactics appear increasingly likely. This is unfortunate. What we need at this point is not more nominations conflict, but a gradual de-politicization of the nomination process so that Presidents of either party can select the most qualified nominees who share their jurisprudential vision. I believe the Senate should have rapidly confirmed President Bush's nominees, and I hope (even if in vain) that the Senate will do the same for President Obama or McCain.
UPDATE: I won't rehash it all here, but I've posted extensively on the history of judicial nomination fights before. I summarized these posts (and provided links) in this post: "Judicial Nomination Fights -- Past and Present."
Related Posts (on one page):
- Judicial Nominees By the Numbers:
- Judicial Confirmations By the Numbers:
- Fourth Circuit "Logjam":
- Judicial Nomination Stall:
given what went on when republicans had full control of the senate, i have no idea why you don't expect them to use obstructionist tactics.
although i do commend the fact that you won't support them. that's a principled stand that many in politics do not hold.
It's about time that the Republican senators started to show some backbone.
In short, maybe the numbers don't tell the whole story.
John Roberts was confirmed 78-22, with almost half of Senate Dems voting against him. Apparently, his Harvard credentials weren't enough? D.C. judgeship not enough?
Alito was confirmed 58-42. Apparently, 15 years on the Third Circuit, writing good opinions, worried some Democrats.
Um, Sen. McCain upped the ante on this mess by leading the Gang of 14 in the first place, which legitmized the obstructionism. I don't think he has any probability of NOW suggesting that he's shocked! shocked! that there's some obstructionism. If he were to, it would hurt him with the bipartisan label he so adores.
I saw Scalia speak during law school. He made the point that as long as judges decide to be politicians, the nomination process will be politicized.
That's nonsense, based solely on the conceited narcissism of a senatorial ego.
President Clinton worked with Senate Republicans when he made nominations. President Bush has take a much more confrontational approach.
If Bush cooperated more with Democratic Senators, he would have had an opportunity to get more appointments in his last year.
I am afraid that at this point, it is too late.
Oh really? Then how do you explain Clinton's nomination of an aging judge he had never heard of?
I take this to mean that, because Bush has not worked with the Senate, he has nominated some (perhaps many) judges that the Senate does not deem worthy of or qualified for a judgeship.
Well that is all good and fine, but if that is the case, then vote "no" on them, and allow further, presumably more suitable, nominations to be made. Stalling is a disgraceful and pathetic tactic.
Clinton never heard of Ginsburg? That's hard to believe, and would certainly not to be Clinton's credit. RBG was one of the most prominent Circuit Judges appointed by Jimmy Carter (confirmed in 1980, an election year) and had long been on the short-list of those speculated to be Supreme Court material.
But even if we accept Hatch's version, what Justin posted is not even close to an accurate summary of what Hatch actually wrote. Justin is the one guilty of rewriting history here.
Moreover, even if Hatch's summary were correct, it would hardly be responsive to the point. The point is that Democrats refuse to accept any Republican nominees, while Republicans are willing to do so with Democratic nominees. The claim that they treated Ginsberg as a "consensus pick" would support that point.
Second, current nominees aren't being filibustered, and so have absolutely nothing to do with the issue that the Gang of 14 addressed.
On the merits of the judicoial appointments, oh well. That's politics. Of course, the GOP will up the ante for the next Dem president and then the Dems for the next GOP etc. etc.
Maybe no judges confirmed for a whole term one day.
So why was Agee confirmed 96-0 to the Fourth Circuit last month? The exception proves your rule?
I notice the pitcher of Kiesler Kool-Aid has not yet run dry. The Senate has returned the nomination of this man who enjoys "widespread support" twice already.