A project tracking federal judicial nominations and courts.
|
|
|
 Editorials and Opinion
|
The Register's Editorial: Grassley's 'court-packing' analogy goes astray: An independent commission, not politics, should guide the distribution of federal appeals judges (Des Moines Register [IA] , 06/17/13)
"Rather than adding judges to the federal appeals court, Obama is proposing to fill three existing vacancies on the appeals court, which is allotted 11 full-time judgeships by Congress.
Filling vacancies on the federal courts is the president’s constitutional duty. Unless any of the three is found to be unsuited for the bench, the Senate should confirm them....U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, an alumnus of the D.C. circuit, explained in a law review article that, because of the nature of the cases the D.C. circuit hears, the court is unique among the appeals courts. In any case, if there were a workload imbalance, you might think the federal judges who administer the appeals courts would have recommended this change. But they have not. ... Grassley voted with the majority to confirm all three of Bush’s appointments to the court during his presidency, bringing the court to its full complement of 11 judges."
Stop playing politics with federal court (Bangor Daily News [ME], 06/16/13)
Opinion by Megan D. Hannan: "When Kayatta was confirmed in February — 13 months after his nomination — Collins said, “The people who rely on the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit waited far too long for a full complement of judges.”... But also on May 23, Collins signed on as a cosponsor of legislation proposed by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to eliminate the three vacant positions on the D.C. court.... Collins voted to confirm three judges to that court when George W. Bush was president, including twice voting to fill the 10th seat and once to fill the 11th seat.... President Barack Obama recently presented three new nominations to the D.C. Circuit. Call on Collins to stop playing politics with the court system, to end the filibusters to all federal courts, and to vote on these nominees, one way or the other."
June Girard: Don't be distracted by Obama's supposed scandals (Gainesville Sun [FL] , 06/15/13)
"The real scandal is the unprecedented obstructionism regarding judicial and executive branch nominees.
Currently there are three nominees for the D.C. Circuit, which is just below the Supreme Court, that handles all cases invoking federal and executive power. ...No movement by Congress for these important jobs is a scandal."
Fill the Kansas Tenth Circuit vacancy (Kansas City Star, 06/14/13)
Prof. Carl Tobias: "Obama cooperated with the Wyoming senators to nominate Wyoming Attorney General Gregory Phillips for Judge O’Brien’s seat, and the Senate will probably confirm Phillips in June, while the president worked closely with the Utah senators to nominate Utah Court of Appeals Judge Carolyn McHugh last week ... Obama did promptly nominate Steve Six, who earned a unanimously well-qualified ABA ranking, to Judge Tacha’s opening in March 2011. Mr. Six competently answered probing questions during his May hearing. Nevertheless, Kansas Republican Senators Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran chose to oppose Six before the panel could vote, and his nomination subsequently expired."
Our Views: Less politics on judgeships (Advocate [Baton Rouge, LA], 06/12/13)
Editorial: The slow-walking of judicial nominations is unacceptable....Obama has selected three apparently qualified nominees for the District of Columbia appeals court. We have no doubt they are liberals; if Mitt Romney were president, they would be conservatives. One of Obama’s nominees is a sitting judge, and one of them served in the Bush administration; overall, there are no surprises here.
The three are qualified and deserve a quick and respectful hearing in Judiciary, and then an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor."
Letter: Judges held hostage (Salt Lake Tribune [UT] , 06/11/13)
Frank Whitaker: "This delay under Obama is bad government. The numbers show an unprecedented and unacceptable degree of partisan obstruction. Any president’s nominees should be considered and voted on in a timely fashion....The people elected Obama to do his job and nominate judges, and we didn’t elect senators to not do theirs and avoid voting on them by employing arcane and undemocratic rules."
Editorial: Stop abusing the confirmation process (Tampa Bay Times [FL], 06/07/13)
"Despite President Barack Obama's re-election, Senate Republicans still are filibustering highly qualified Cabinet-level and judicial picks to hamper the executive and judicial branches. Government and the courts cannot effectively function without confirmed appointments.... Obama wants the Senate to promptly confirm three new nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the nation's second most important court after the U.S. Supreme Court. Senate Republicans would rather reduce the number of seats on the appeals court than allow Obama to fill them. ...Democrats should drop the nuclear option, and Republicans should quit abusing the confirmation process."
GOP obstruction of judicial nominations is ‘unprecedented’ (Wichita Eagle [KS] , 06/06/13)
Phillip Brownlee: President Obama is correct that GOP obstructionism is “unprecedented.” Sheldon Goldman, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts, developed an “Index of Obstruction and Delay.” The rating for the most recent Congress was the highest ever recorded. “It approached total obstruction or delay,” he told the Washington Post. The Congressional Research Service also recently concluded: “President Obama is the only one of the five most recent presidents for whom, during his first term, both the average and median waiting time from nomination to confirmation for circuit and district court nominees was greater than half a calendar year.”
Nominations show democracy on trial in Senate (Politico, 06/05/13)
Nan Aron: "a pattern in which the D.C. Circuit blocked Wall Street reforms, undermined labor rights and rolled back environmental protections. Until recently, there were four vacancies on the 11-member court. Though Republicans allowed one of those vacancies to be filled last month, they are trying to prevent the president from filling the remaining three and restoring balance to the D.C. Circuit."
Nuke 'em, Harry: Reid should break the minority's filibuster grip (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [PA] , 06/05/13)
"One of the worst areas in which the Senate has shut itself down is judicial nominations. Many nominees have not been confirmed a year or more after the president sent their names to the Senate.
The motive is simple: Republicans do not want more liberal judges on the federal bench. But instead of insisting on moderation, as they claim, they are simply refusing to fill vacancies....what is happening now is an unprecedented power grab....This president, like others, deserves to staff his administration. Courts cannot do justice with empty benches."
EDITORIAL: Advise and Consent (New York Times, 06/05/13)
"By singling out the District of Columbia Circuit through sabotage of previous nominations, and by threatening to reduce the court’s size to forestall new Obama appointees, Republicans have caused something not far from a crisis in our constitutional system....Senators Mitch McConnell and Charles E. Grassley have contended that in making this trio of nominations, the president is “court-packing,” as if he were improperly adding seats to the court. ...It is Mr. Grassley who wants to change the size of the court, by eliminating the three seats for which the president has just made nominations, so Republican-appointed judges can maintain influence on a court that often rules on important regulatory and governmental issues."
Judicial appointments: A lesson in packing (Economist, 06/05/13)
"Republicans have dragged out or stopped the confirmation of many of Mr Obama’s judges. Although he confirmed about as many judges in his first term as George W. Bush did, he had many more vacancies to fill. As a result, the number of vacancies has steadily climbed. They rarely reached 50 during Mr Bush’s tenure, but were regularly around 100 in Mr Obama’s first term.... it is Mr Grassley’s bid to eliminate three vacancies which Mr Obama would otherwise fill that looks most like an attempt to rig the court in an unashamedly partisan direction."
How Congress and the White House Eviscerate the Judiciary: Partisanship and incompetence leave federal judges home alone. (National Journal, 06/04/13)
Ron Fournier: "There are 81 vacancies on the federal bench, a nearly 50 percent increase since Obama took office. His predecessors fared much better....The time it takes to confirm a nominee has skyrocketed, a trend that makes the federal bench less appealing to the best and brightest. ... The most obvious cause of these numbers is GOP obstructionism. More than a Democratic talking point, it is a fact that Republicans consider undermining Obama as their clearest path to victory, individually and collectively....The problem goes beyond the Senate filibuster and to the power the home-state senators traditionally wield over judicial nominations. In a Brookings Institute briefing paper, Russell Wheeler notes that almost half of the vacancies without nominees are in states with two GOP senators. The time from vacancy to nomination was greater in states with two GOP senators, he wrote."
Obama says GOP obstruction of nominations is ‘unprecedented.’ What if he’s right? (Washington Post, 06/04/13)
Greg Sargent: "Dr. Sheldon Goldman, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts who focuses on judicial nominations, has developed what he calls an “Index of Obstruction and Delay” designed to measure levels of obstructionism. In research that will be released in a July article he co-authored for Judicature Journal, he has calculated that the level of obstructionism of Obama circuit court nominees during the last Congress was unprecedented....Meanwhile, a recent report from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service concluded: 'President Obama is the only one of the five most recent Presidents for whom, during his first term, both the average and median waiting time from nomination to confirmation for circuit and district court nominees was greater than half a calendar year (i.e., more than 182 days).'"
President Obama Announces Three Nominees for the D.C. Circuit Court (The White House, 06/04/13)
White House Blog by Megan Slack: "Today, President Obama announced that he is nominating three candidates for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: Patricia Millet, Nina Pillard and Robert Wilkins.
As the President explained, one of his most important responsibilities is nominating qualified men and women to serve as judges on the federal bench. And the Senate has a constitutional duty to promptly consider judicial nominees for confirmation."
Editorial: Senate showdown; A fight over Obama’s judicial nominees and other appointees is about the politics of minority rule in the Senate (Toledo Blade [OH] , 06/04/13)
"One of the worst areas in which the Senate has shut itself down is judicial nominations. Many nominees have not been confirmed a year or more after the President sent their names to the Senate. Other nominations never got made, because Republican senators refused to send recommendations to Mr. Obama — a traditional Senate function.... what is happening now is an unprecedented power grab. The filibuster threat is used to block not an occasional nomination, but most nominations.
So Mr. Obama is picking a fight. He is nominating three judges to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which is second in importance among federal courts only to the Supreme Court....This president, like any other, deserves to staff his administration. Courts cannot do justice with empty benches."
Obama to set stage for judicial showdown (Maddow Blog {MSNBC], 06/04/13)
Steve Benen: "At the outset, let's emphasize how uncontroversial this is -- there are vacancies on an important federal bench, so the president is sending qualified nominees to the Senate for consideration. Republicans are characterizing this as a scandalous power-grab, while many political reporters are describing this as Obama thumbing his nose at his political rivals. In reality, it's neither -- presidents filling judicial vacancies is basic American governance. ... What's more, let's not overlook the importance of the D.C. Circuit in particular.... This is, in other words, a fight worth having, and the outcome will have a lasting impact for many years to come."
Nomination delays hurting courts, federal judge says; Long delays drive away nominees (Advocate [Baton Rouge, LA], 06/03/13)
U.S. District Judge James J. Brady spoke out Monday aga inst the increasingly glacial pace of judicial nominations, calling on U.S. Senate leaders to “come to their senses” and recognize the toll a vacant bench has on the court system.“It’s just crazy, and we need to do something about that,” said Brady, who sits in the Middle District of Louisiana in Baton Rouge. “What’s happening, in my mind, is we’re driving away a lot of really good folks that would make excellent judges because they’re saying, ‘I don’t need to go through that process and be in limbo for 18, 20, 24 months.’ That’s something I’m very, very concerned about.” ...“Getting a third judge has been a real relief for us,” Brady said. “It helps people get their cases decided much more promptly and, I think, in a much better fashion.”
ACS President Knocks Senate Obstructionists Over Efforts to Hobble D.C. Circuit (American Constitution Society Blog, 06/03/13)
"“Major cases involving regulations” of our health care system, environment, and workers’ rights are heard by the Court, as well as major national security cases and voting rights cases. The majority of such cases are “required to go to the D.C. Circuit,” meaning the Court is one of the more powerful in the country, she said. ... Fredrickson noted that when George W. Bush was president Grassley had no complaints about the number of seats on the D.C. Circuit, instead strongly supporting the president’s constitutional duty to fill vacancies on the federal bench."
A Wee Question About Republicans and the DC Circuit Court (Mother Jones, 06/03/13)
Kevin Drum: "So here's my question: Following the 2007 vote, are any Republicans on record complaining about the DC Court being too big prior to 2010 or so? It doesn't seem likely, since in 2005 they confirmed Thomas Griffith as the (then) 11th member, and in 2006, after a couple of vacancies had opened up, they confirmed Brett Kavanaugh as the (then) 10th member. So it sure seems as if Republicans thought the court needed more than eight members back when it was George Bush making the nominations."
Editorial: What Makes the D.C. Circuit Different? (New York Times, 06/01/13)
"Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, is pushing a bill misleadingly called the Court Efficiency Act, which would eliminate three unfilled seats on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Next week, President Obama is expected to nominate three highly qualified lawyers for those seats, to bring the court to its full complement of 11 active judges. The Senate should confirm them quickly.... In April, the Judicial Conference of the United States, which Chief Justice Roberts leads, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that “based on our current caseload needs,” the D.C. Circuit should continue to have 11 judgeships. The Democrats should do everything they can to fill all open seats on the court. Senator Grassley’s blatantly obstructionist “efficiency” plan is an insult to the Senate as well as to the appellate judges. The Judiciary Committee should torpedo the plan now, before it does serious harm to this important court."
BREAKING COURT NEWS: President does job. Republicans set hair on fire (Huffington Post, 05/30/13)
Nan Aron, President, Alliance for Justice: "Senator Chuck Grassley claims that the D.C. Circuit is so underworked it doesn't really need all 11 judges that the law says it does, so he insists that now would be a convenient time to stop filling the seats. The fact that 15 of the last 19 D.C. Circuit Court judges were appointed by Republicans is, of course, irrelevant; as is the fact that he voted to confirm an 11th judge for the same court when George W. Bush was president."
The G.O.P.’s Court-Shrinking Plan (New York Times, 05/30/13)
Editorial Page Editor's Blog by David Firestone: "now they are angry that Mr. Obama is daring to nominate three judges to long-open seats on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, where one seat has been empty since 2005. Senators Mitch McConnell and Charles Grassley have accused the White House of “court-packing,” apparently hoping the public no long remembers the real meaning of that term. (It refers to F.D.R.’s attempt to add more seats to the Supreme Court to get the rulings he wanted. It has nothing to do with filling existing vacancies.)
It’s Mr. Grassley, in fact, who wants to pull an F.D.R. in reverse, talking openly about shrinking the D.C. Circuit so that Republican-appointed judges can remain in the majority there. The circuit court has overruled the Obama administration on several important regulatory issues, and Republicans want it to continue doing so."
Senators Call For Shrinking Small, Overworked D.C. Circuit (Above the Law, 05/30/13)
JOE PATRICE: "The appellate court facing the most complex workload in the country is also tiny and overworked. Only the First Circuit has fewer active slots, and with three vacancies, the D.C. Circuit has fewer judges than its sibling courts with 11 active judges. So it should come as no surprise that some senators are actively trying to shrink the D.C. Circuit. The crux of their beef is that actually filling the three vacancies on the court would constitute court packing, because no one on the Hill has bothered to pick up an AP U.S. History textbook and figure out what “court packing” means. ... shrinking the D.C. Circuit is monumentally stupid and no one makes a remotely good argument for it.... Filling vacant seats is not “court packing,” it’s “fulfilling the President’s legal obligation.” ...The Judicial Conference, the non-partisan organization that is supposed to evaluate the sizes of the circuits, thinks the D.C. Circuit is just fine with 11 judges."
|
