Editorials and Opinion
The 12 times Republicans insisted on a 60-vote threshold for Obama’s judicial nominees (American Constitution Society Blog, 03/30/17)
Christopher Kang, Guest Post: Many Senate Democrats believe that a Supreme Court nominee should be within the mainstream and therefore able to earn the support of 60 Senators. Given the stakes, this hardly seems unreasonable, but Republicans now claim that a 60-vote threshold for judicial nominees would be unfair. Here are the 12 times they insisted on a 60-vote threshold for Obama’s lower court nominees—and, really, once Republicans demanded that a trial court judge in Rhode Island needed 60 votes, shouldn’t Democrats be able to ask for the same for the highest court in the land?
Maine Voices: Environmental stewards should stand together against Gorsuch: President Trump's nominee opposes the long-standing custom that courts defer to experts in government (Portland Press Herald [ME] , 03/25/17)
Ken Cline: Gorsuch, a federal appellate judge, has a record of extreme positions that proves he is too far outside the mainstream and too hostile to the environment for this critically important position. Gorsuch has been described as more extreme than Scalia, the most anti-environment justice in recent Supreme Court history.
Gorsuch’s judicial philosophy will limit the access of everyday Americans to the courts and prevent agencies like the EPA from doing their job to protect our air, water and health. This is a dangerous view that will favor polluters and industry over the rights of the people.
On at least three separate occasions, Gorsuch has denied access to the courts for environmental groups. Environmental laws without citizen access to the courts to enforce them are a hollow promise. ... We must hold the Senate to that 60-vote threshold..... Collins and King must raise their voices with us and reject Neil Gorsuch
If Gorsuch is confirmed, the legitimacy of the US supreme court won't recover (Guardian News and Media, 03/20/17)
Russ Feingold: Republicans will attempt to complete their cynical political takeover of the US supreme court, launched last year when they failed to confirm or to even give a hearing to Judge Merrick Garland. ... Confirming Gorsuch would endorse and normalize unconstitutional political games.... And it is not just the supreme court that will be affected, as the strategy will be used to block appointments to lower courts.
How Trump's Supreme Court Pick Quietly Wipes Out Environmental Cases: Green groups may never get their day in court. (Mother Jones, 03/20/17)
Rebecca Leber: Throughout his career, Gorsuch has found creative ways of throwing judicial roadblocks in front of environmental litigation. In many instances, Gorsuch has ruled that environmentalist groups don't have what is called "standing" to bring a case. ... If Gorsuch's logic were applied to other cases, plenty of environmental arguments would be at risk, says Grab. "Judge Gorsuch's approach in this case is potentially worrisome to any organization that might want to challenge an agency's tightening of a regulation as not being comprehensive enough," she notes .... Gorsuch has also attempted to limit the ability of green groups to defend environmental rules in court.
The Gorsuch Nomination: A Setback for Human Rights (Huffington Post, 03/20/17)
Op-Ed by Prof. Bruce Hay: There are compelling reasons to have drummed up loud opposition to Gorsuch, notably the theft of this Supreme Court seat by unscrupulous Republicans and the fact that Gorsuch’s views are far out of the judicial mainstream .... The consequences for human rights and civil liberties of Democratic neglect of the judiciary – which includes not only allowing the GOP to steal Merrick Garland’s seat, but also leaving 25 percent of lower court seats unfilled at the expiration of the Obama presidency – have been dire.
In Gorsuch, Conservative Activist Sees Test Case for Reshaping the Judiciary (New York Times, 03/18/17)
Eric Lipton and Jereney W. Peters: “Make no mistake,” Mr. Leo said in a speech last month at the Ronald Reagan Dinner at the Conservative Political Action Conference. “How we deal with this vacancy now, the strength that we as the pro-Constitution movement demonstrate in this fight, will determine the extent to which we are able to both nominate and confirm pro-Constitution judges as we move forward.”
Mr. Trump already has 124 judgeships to fill — a backlog created by Senate Republicans who blocked the confirmation of many of President Barack Obama’s nominees. That includes 19 vacancies on the federal appeals courts.
Because of the age of many judges today, the White House expects between 70 to 90 appeals court positions to open up over the next four years. That would give Mr. Trump the opportunity to fill anywhere from one-third to half of all appellate seats
How the Democrats Should Fight Gorsuch’s Nomination (Washington Monthly, 03/17/17)
Op-Ed by Martin Longman: the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee should question the nominee closely about his views on antitrust law.... lifetime appointments deserve special scrutiny, and that they shouldn’t be made on the narrowest of partisan majorities.... When a president seeks to fill seats on district and appeals courts, he knows that he’ll need the support of the home state senators ... . the blue slip system is still in place and it provides moral guidance as well as an important precedent.
The second main principle that must be applied here is that the Republicans must not be allowed to effectively steal a Supreme Court seat without any consequences.... And if the Democrats put up some kind of faux-fight only to cave on the theft of this seat, they’ll not only buy themselves three or four decades more of Scalia-like jurisprudence on the Supreme Court, they’ll infuriate their base and show that they are so weak that they can be rolled, defeated and humiliated without the slightest downside for the Republicans.
[Editorial] Our view: Fill Erie’s federal judgeship now (Erie Times-News [PA], 03/16/17)
By the Editorial Board: Pennsylvania's senators, Republican Pat Toomey and Democrat Bob Casey, have pledged to continue their bipartisan approach to federal judicial nominations under President Donald Trump and laid out the process for candidates to apply.
News of continued cooperation amid so much toxic division is welcome.
But what the senators' announcement omitted was the time, energy and hope already squandered to fill some judicial posts in the state, especially the U.S. District Court seat in Erie, which, to the disservice of northwestern Pennsylvania litigants, has been vacant for three and one-half years.... Baxter, a Democrat, and Marilyn Horan, a Butler County Republican nominated for a district court seat in Pittsburgh, breezed through placid hearings before the bipartisan Senate Judiciary Committee, which in January 2016 unanimously advanced them for Senate confirmation.
There the nominations stalled, as Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, playing an unworthy, cynical game of naked politics, obstructed the process because, in his view, Obama already had nominated enough judges.... We urge them to quickly endorse Baxter again, and cross our fingers that the White House will eschew disruption and renominate her for the post in the name of good governance. If Baxter, and Horan, were quickly seated, that would help relieve the entire district, which is operating at a 40 percent judicial reduction.
Dark money pays for court ads (Billings Gazette [MT,WY], 02/24/17)
Dick Spalding, Letter to the Editor: We do have a crisis, in no small part because of forces like Judicial Crisis Network, which helped fight successfully against the Republican Senate's confirmation of Obama's appointments.
Obama started his tenure with 54 vacancies and Trump is starting his term with 102. The U.S. Senate has sat on these vacancies for most of the past 18 months in hopes of filling these lifetime vacancies with Republican appointees. Some 38 of these are deemed "emergencies." Most of Judicial Crisis funding has come from ... right-wing groups .... This is enough to doubt Gorsuch's independence. The ads are pointed towards Montanans so that we will encourage Tester to vote for the confirmation.
Republicans are Hijacking the Courts. Will Senate Democrats Let Them? (Huffington Post, 02/22/17)
Algernon Austin: Many have called the theft of the Judge Merrick Garland’s appointment unprecedented, but this statement is not quite correct. It is unprecedented only if one ignores the fact that several of President Obama’s judicial appointments to lower courts were also blocked. Because Republicans blocked the appointment of Garland and many other judicial appointments, they have now delivered all of those seats to Trump.
What will Democrats do about this? Will they allow Trump to stack the judiciary or will they insist that these are stolen seats and therefore they do not belong to Trump?
In my view, a reasonable Democratic response would be to work to block Trump judicial appointments in proportion to the degree that Obama’s appointments were blocked.
Mitch McConnell Marvels At The Judicial Crisis He Created: After years of blocking Barack Obama’s court picks, Republicans now have “an excellent chance of clearing the deck of all the vacancies,” says the GOP leader. (Huffington Post, 02/05/17)
Jennifer Bendery: If there is a hallmark issue that defines Mitch McConnell’s time as Senate majority leader under President Barack Obama, it was his obstruction of judicial nominees....But he did so at the cost of driving up judicial vacancies around the country, so much so that the federal bench is now emptier than it’s been in decades and the number of judicial emergencies ― when a court is so overburdened it can barely function ― spiked from 12 to 43 in the two years since Republicans retook control of the Senate.... There’s a federal appeals court in Wisconsin that’s been waiting 2,586 days for a vacancy to be filled ― looking at you, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.). A district court in North Carolina has had a vacancy for 4,054 days ― hi, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.). That’s more than 11 years.... The thing to watch now is whether Republicans use their control of the White House and the Senate to push through nominees who aren’t just conservative but have extreme right-wing ideologies.
Democrats are limited in what they can do to stop them from doing that. But they aren’t helpless. If they’re prepared to play hardball, like Republicans did with Obama’s judicial nominees, they could lean on a judiciary committee rule to unilaterally block any nominee from their state from moving forward.
Trump’s judicial picks will affect far more than the Supreme Court (McClatchy newspapers, 01/23/17)
Michael Doyle: “Based on . . . Trump’s cabinet nominations, I am very concerned that he will try to advance judicial nominees that are outside the mainstream and that they will not reflect the diversity of the people they serve,” said former White House Deputy Counsel Christopher Kang.... “I think . . . Trump will be surprised to learn how much power home-state senators wield in the judicial nomination process,” Kang said.
Democrats Must Do What They Can to Protect the Supreme Court and the Nation (People For blog, 01/19/17)
Paul Gordon: In a sharp departure from the norm, Trump last year essentially delegated authority for selecting potential justices to right-wing groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society.... Yes, there is a vacancy on the Court, but there shouldn’t be. ... It exists only because Senate Republicans took the unprecedented step of refusing to consider President Obama’s nominee, D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Merrick Garland. ... During Obama’s first term and into his second, the number of judicial vacancies skyrocketed, not because there weren’t nominees, but because Republicans blocked votes indiscriminately. ... Majority Leader McConnell ended the year without allowing the Senate to vote on the 23 circuit and district court nominees who had been languishing on the Senate floor for many months, sometimes for over a year, after having been thoroughly vetted and approved by the Judiciary Committee.
Confirm Inga Bernstein for the District of Massachusetts (The Hill, 01/13/17)
Carl Tobias: On July 30, 2015, President Barack Obama nominated Inga Bernstein, a longtime private practitioner, for a judicial vacancy on the District of Massachusetts. Bernstein is a well qualified, mainstream nominee who enjoys the powerful support of Massachusetts Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved Bernstein on May 19, 2016 without dissent. Nonetheless, she languished on the floor ever since, mainly due to GOP leaders’ refusal to allow her confirmation debate and vote. Because Ms. Bernstein is an experienced, moderate nominee and the District of Massachusetts needs this vacancy filled, the Senate must swiftly hold her final debate and vote.... Warren and other Democratic senators requested unanimous consent to vote on Bernstein and nineteen remaining district nominees who need floor votes, but the GOP objected.
How Barack Obama Transformed The Nation’s Courts: He filled two SCOTUS seats and made the judiciary more diverse than ever. But the GOP stopped him from doing more. (Huffington Post, 01/12/17)
Jennifer Bendery: Obama will leave office with 329 of his judicial nominees confirmed to lifetime posts on federal courts. That includes two U.S. Supreme Court justices and four judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the two most powerful courts in the nation. Because of Obama, Democratic appointees now have a 7-4 advantage on the D.C. panel, and those judges will play a major role in deciding cases during the Trump administration related to environmental regulations, health care, national security, consumer protections and challenges to executive orders.
Obama also tilted the partisan makeup of circuit courts. Nine of the country’s 13 appeals courts now have majority Democratic appointees, compared with just one when he took office in 2009.
There is a caveat to his judicial success, however: When Republicans regained the Senate majority two years ago, they ground judicial confirmations to a halt. That has left 86 district court vacancies and 17 circuit court vacancies for President-elect Donald Trump to fill. That’s a huge number of court seats to fall victim to partisan politics. For some context: Obama inherited 59 district and circuit court vacancies when he became president. Trump is inheriting 103.
Lowry: Make Jeff Sessions wait a little bit (Record [NJ] , 01/07/17)
Column by Bruce Lowry, an editorial writer for The Record: the painfully long wait that Bergen County counsel Julien Neals – nominated to the federal bench by President Obama – was forced to endure by the Republican-led U.S. Senate. By last year’s end, Neals, a man Sen. Cory Booker has described as one of the “most impressive people” he has met in professional life, had waited 674 days without being given a vote by the full Senate.
Now contrast that, along with the Senate’s refusal last year to hold hearings on Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, against Republicans’ 180-degree turn toward expediency on President-elect Donald Trump’s nomination of Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama to be the next U.S. Attorney General.... it should be alarming for anyone who cares about this nation or its laws that he is being fast-tracked, despite deep concerns about his civil rights record, while Neals, an African-American championed not only by Booker but many in the New Jersey legal community, was made to wait … and wait … and wait.... Julien Neals had to wait 674 days for no good reason. There is plenty of reason to make Jeff Sessions wait
Opinion: Anti-Obama Republicans have created a judicial emergency (Los Angeles Times, 01/07/17)
Carl Tobias: The Times editorial board accurately describes the severely deteriorated state of federal judicial selection and suggests that Republican obstruction during President Obama’s two terms in office is substantially responsible for the 100-plus current vacancies.... Indeed, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals currently has four openings, all of which have been declared judicial emergencies. The editorial astutely states that Democrats could retaliate by similarly obstructing President-elect Donald Trump’s nominees. It also correctly observes that Trump could and should “make a significant gesture toward restoring a measure of normality” to the selection process by renominating the Obama nominees left stranded by GOP obstruction to be confirmed with bipartisan approval by the Senate Judiciary Committee. However, Obama can and should re-submit those nominees now, and the Senate should confirm them immediately.
Fix nation's judicial staffing crisis (Detroit Free Press [MI] , 01/07/17)
Carl Tobias, Op-Ed: On Tuesday, when the 114th Congress adjourned, the nominations of 51 individuals whom President Barack Obama selected for the circuit and district courts expired. Now that the new Senate has convened, Obama should attempt to fill some of the 104 vacancies, 42 of which are “judicial emergencies,” by renominating numerous well-qualified, mainstream nominees and urging their prompt Senate confirmation.... Obama must quickly renominate the 20 well-qualified, mainstream district nominees the Senate Judiciary Committee approved without dissent. GOP senators proposed and supported most, and they have languished for months. Obama should also seriously consider renominating the three outstanding circuit nominees who earned panel approval. If renominated, the chamber must promptly vote on all of these nominees.
The Senate lacks time to process the remaining 28 nominees before Trump’s inauguration, but he must consider nominating again strong, consensus nominees who possesses GOP support.
[Editorial] Cheers and Jeers ... (Butler Eagle [PA], 01/07/17)
"Jeer: As the U.S. Senate embarks upon a new session, it continues to fail to live up to one of its basic duties: staffing the federal courts that deal with everything from criminal to civil concerns in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania’s Western District court has struggled since 2013 with vacant judicial posts. There are now four vacancies — the most of any federal district court system in the country.
It doesn’t have to be this way. The district has two nominees (Butler County Judge Marilyn Horan and U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Baxter) who have already cleared committee votes in the Senate. Another jurist, Robert Colville, is also ready to step up to the federal bench.
But now there are questions as to whether they are too moderate for President-elect Donald Trump, who has promised to appoint right-wing judges to the bench.
This is a ridiculous and harmful state-of-affairs, and the Senate should be ashamed of itself. They need to do their jobs and fill these district court vacancies with all possible haste."
[Editorial] Will Trump try to stack the courts? (San Francisco Chronicle [CA], 01/06/17)
"It’s no mystery why nearly one in eight federal bench slots is empty. Republicans have refused to vote on dozens of President Obama’s nominees .... The vacancies are nearly double the amount that Obama inherited from George W. Bush. The unfilled posts have created a logjam .... By Senate custom, court nominees must pass muster with home state senators. In California’s case this process is especially weighty. The federal appeals court in San Francisco has four vacancies, and six district judgeships are empty across the state. ... Given this “blue slip” process of vetting, the state’s senators, Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, can block a White House nomination. ... During the Bush administration, the differences were negotiated"
Did Jeff Sessions block integration of south Alabama federal courts? (AL.com [AL], 01/06/17)
John Archibald column: Sessions in the latter 1990s - for the entire second term of President Bill Clinton - was able to keep a federal judgeship in Mobile vacant, rather than to allow it filled with someone he found objectionable.
And some say Sessions - who has been hounded by decades-old comments that have been seen as racist - wasn't just blocking nominees of a different political stripe. Those involved say he blocked the integration of the federal bench in the Southern District of Alabama.
Birmingham lawyer John Saxon was part of a Bill Clinton patronage committee that decided it was time to integrate the federal courts in Mobile. The Northern and Middle districts had already seen black judges and magistrates, but the Southern District remained lily white.... Saxon said the group sent name after name of candidates - at least two judges and three lawyers - to the White House for vetting. But Clinton's people hit a wall every time. It was Sessions - then a still-new junior senator but a member of the Judiciary Committee. He opposed every one of them.
"Sessions told the White House he couldn't accept any of those people," Saxon said.... He said he asked Sessions to "tell us the name of any African-American anywhere in the state that you find acceptable."
It's not as if there were no qualified candidates. ... Sessions didn't budge .... "We gave him the opportunity to put forth the names of African Americans, but he wouldn't do it," Saxon said. "It was the single most frustrating thing I've ever done."
Mitch McConnell's Political Moves Are Appalling, But Democrats Could Learn from Them (Esquire, 01/05/17)
Jack Holmes: The Lord of Obstruction had a message for Senate Democrats on Wednesday: No obstructing unless I'm the one doing it. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who, after Antonin Scalia died with nearly a year left in President Obama's term declared that he would refuse to give any Supreme Court nominee a hearing, held a press conference following Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's pledge to contest Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominations. McConnell had a stern message for his opponents in The World's Greatest Deliberative Body: "The American people simply will not tolerate" any attempt to block SCOTUS appointees. The cynicism here is breathtaking. ... To be clear, McConnell's rhetoric here was disingenuous.... Republicans embarked on an unprecedented campaign of obstruction, particularly with regard to judicial appointees,... If Democrats are going to survive, they need to ditch the weird worshipping of civility and learn to punch someone in the jaw. The Supreme Court nomination process—and the hearings for cabinet appointees like Jeff Sessions—would be a good place to start throwing a few jabs.
[Editorial] Fill the courts: Federal vacancies delay justice for all (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [PA], 01/05/17)
Editorial Board: the four vacancies in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania are the most anywhere. Across the nation, however, there are 112 vacancies, the highest profile being the empty seat on the Supreme Court left by the Feb. 13 death of Justice Antonin Scalia. There are also 86 vacancies in district courts, 17 in circuit courts of appeals, six in the Court of Federal Claims and two in the Court of International Trade.
Worse, only 59 candidates have been nominated for the vacancies, meaning there would be no quick way to fill nearly half of those seats even if the partisan bickering were to cease immediately. Forty-one courts have what are called “judicial emergencies”.... None of that takes into account what some observers believe is a pressing need for additional judges in parts of the country.... In Pennsylvania, Sens. Pat Toomey, a Republican, and Bob Casey, a Democrat, are known for collaborating on the selection of judicial nominees — and they plan to continue their collaboration. Mr. Casey’s office said the nominees are in limbo because the GOP leadership wouldn’t bring them to a vote.
Vacancies slow cases, dragging out justice for victims and hampering the fortunes of companies involved in contract or intellectual property disputes.
What will Feinstein, Harris do on judicial nominees? (Sacramento Bee [CA] , 01/05/17)
Bill Whalen, Hoover Institution: Traditionally, the Senate Judiciary Committee gives “blue slip” privileges to each nominee’s home-state senators. Unless both senators support the pick, the nomination won’t go forward. That gives Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on Judiciary, and new Sen. Kamala Harris extraordinary sway on California judicial nominees.
Editorial: Julien Neals should be a federal judge (Record [NJ] , 01/04/17)
"[W]hat happened last year to President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland – by all accounts, a qualified, centrist jurist who wasn’t even granted a hearing – was without precedent.
Garland’s time in nomination limbo was small compared to the experience of another Obama court nominee – Julien Neals, .... Booker has described Neals as one of the “most impressive people” he has met in professional life and said that Neals’ “skill, aptitude, and unique perspective are needed on the federal bench now more than ever.” Neals and Edward Stanton III, a U.S. attorney from Tennessee, both of whom are black, have waited the longest among nominees who have come out of committee.... New Jersey federal judges are needed more than ever since they carry a workload of roughly 700 cases per year. The failure to fill that vacancy says much about our politics today, and provides evidence of why our judicial system is not working as efficiently as it should."
Mitch McConnell Says Americans Won’t Tolerate Democrats Blocking Supreme Court Nominations: He blocked the president’s own high court nominee for 293 days. (Huffington Post, 01/04/17)
Cristian Farias: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) issued a warning to Democrats on Wednesday, one day after the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland expired without any Senate action: Don’t consider staging a similar blockade on any of President-elect Donald Trump’s high court nominees.
“I think that’s something the American people simply will not tolerate and we’ll be looking forward to receiving a Supreme Court nomination and moving forward on it,” McConnell told reporters.... Garland ... was as mainstream a candidate as President Barack Obama could have offered. McConnell’s admonition that the American public may not put up with prolonged Democratic obstruction is curious in light of his own plan to not lift a finger on any of Obama’s nominees
Confirm Judges Horan and Baxter for the Western District of Pennsylvania (The Hill, 01/03/17)
Carl Tobias: On July 30, 2015, President Barack Obama nominated Susan Paradise Baxter, who has served as a Magistrate Judge in the Western District of Pennsylvania for more than twenty years, and Marilyn Horan, who has served as a Court of Common Pleas Judge in Butler County since 1996, for vacancies on the Western District. The jurists are highly qualified, mainstream nominees, who possess the strong support of Pennsylvania Sens. Bob Casey (D) and Pat Toomey (R). The Senate Judiciary Committee reported both on Jan. 28 voice votes with no dissent. Nonetheless, they languished on the floor since then, primarily because Republican leaders refused to grant them final debates and ballots. Since Judges Baxter and Horan are experienced, moderate nominees and the Western District of Pennsylvania requires all of its vacancies filled, the Senate must expeditiously arrange their confirmation debates and votes.... Democratic senators proffered analogous requests on nineteen remaining district nominees who required final votes, but other members objected.
Reshaping the courts: Donald Trump is poised to paint America’s judiciary red, Democrats may soon lose their dominance in district courts (Economist, 01/03/17)
"Trump’s quest to hold back liberal-leaning courts faces potential stumbling blocks. With Republican intransigence over Merrick Garland, Mr Obama’s Supreme Court pick, leaving a bad taste in Democrats’ mouths, the minority party is likely to use any and all obstructionist tactics available to them under obscure Senate rules to delay or thwart votes on judicial nominees. One possibility is that Democrats may weaponise the norm of senatorial courtesy, an unwritten but well-entrenched principle preventing the Senate from acting on any nominee who does not enjoy the support of both senators from his or her home state.
This courtesy, in one form or another, “has persisted since the presidency of George Washington”, according to Tonja Jacobi, a law professor at Northwestern University."
Editorial: Another judicial dirty trick from Senate Republicans (Los Angeles Times, 01/03/17)
"One of 2016’s most spectacular examples of government dysfunction was the U.S. Senate’s outrageous refusal to consider President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. ... the Senate also failed to hold floor votes on  Obama nominees for lifetime federal judgeships who had been cleared by the Senate Judiciary Committee. ... Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, accused Senate Republicans of setting a “record for inaction on judicial nominations.” Whereas a Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed 68 of George W. Bush’s judicial nominees in the last two years of his presidency, only 22 Obama nominees have been confirmed in the comparable period, ... As with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s stonewalling of the Garland nomination, the failure to act on these lower-court nominations is extreme and inexcusable.... It would be utterly understandable if Senate Democrats now retaliated by making it difficult for President-elect Donald Trump to win confirmation for his judicial nominees, especially those slotted for seats that Obama had every right to fill. ... Trump can make a significant gesture toward restoring a measure of normality to the confirmation process. He should resubmit the names of the nominees who received bipartisan support on the Judiciary Committee but were left stranded because of the delaying tactics of his fellow Republicans."