Falling Off a Cliff Judicial Confirmation Rates Have Nosedived in the Obama Presidency Judicial confirmations slowed to a trickle on the day President Barack Obama took office. Filibusters, anonymous holds, and other obstructionary tactics have become the rule. Uncontroversial nominees wait months for a floor vote, and even district court nominees--low-ranking judges whose confirmations have never been controversial in the past--are routinely filibustered into oblivion. Nominations grind to a halt in many cases even after the Senate Judiciary Committee has unanimously endorsed a nominee. Such tactics are completely unprecedented, and so are their results. Fewer than 43 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees have so far been confirmed, while past presidents have enjoyed confirmation rates as high as 93 percent. And President Obama's nominees have been confirmed at a much slower rate than those of his predecessor--nearly 87 percent of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees were confirmed. The data could not be any clearer. As Figure 1 shows, judicial confirmations have fallen off a cliff since President Obama took office.
Judicial confirmations slowed to a trickle on the day President Barack Obama took office. Filibusters, anonymous holds, and other obstructionary tactics have become the rule. Uncontroversial nominees wait months for a floor vote, and even district court nominees--low-ranking judges whose confirmations have never been controversial in the past--are routinely filibustered into oblivion. Nominations grind to a halt in many cases even after the Senate Judiciary Committee has unanimously endorsed a nominee.
Such tactics are completely unprecedented, and so are their results. Fewer than 43 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees have so far been confirmed, while past presidents have enjoyed confirmation rates as high as 93 percent. And President Obama's nominees have been confirmed at a much slower rate than those of his predecessor--nearly 87 percent of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees were confirmed.
The data could not be any clearer. As Figure 1 shows, judicial confirmations have fallen off a cliff since President Obama took office.
These nomination and confirmation totals are pathetic. And they're irresponsible in a time where we have over 100 vacancies on the federal bench, 31 of which are considered judicial emergencies. Read more...
Read more...
Indeed. The senate's confirmation rate would be even lower if the White House actually had presented a nominee for each Article III vacancy and the numerous agency appointments being filled by "acting" directors.
Judicial Selection Snapshot Last updated: 07/26/2010 Read more...
As usual, what I find interesting is short shrift given Article I, II, IV vacancies by concerned civil libertarians' investigation of partisan obstruction of Mr Obama's master plan. The hierarchy of federal judicial decision-making and bottle-necks to "social justice" are self-evident. Yet one will be hard pressed to locate a concise directory or count of these judges, their political affiliations, and jurisdictions, although their judgements affect Americans' livelihoods daily and directly. Article I personnel are the gate-keepers.
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution lists the enumerated powers over which Congress may legislate, including the power to "constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court." Courts created under this Congressional power are official "Article III courts" with judges enjoying all of the safeguards provided by Article III, including life tenure and secured salaries. However, as you may know, well over half of the courts established by Congress do not contain the safeguards of Article III. Congress has created many "federal" courts, including those adjudicating issues of federal taxation, communication, and trade, by exercising its power under the enumerated powers of Article I, section 8 (including, for example, the "necessary and proper clause" found in Article I, sec. 8, para 18). While it might seem unconstitutional for Congress to create courts that are technically "inferior" to the Supreme Court without providing them Article III protections, the Court has upheld these "legislative courts" or "Article I courts" since 1828. See American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 511 (1828).
However, as you may know, well over half of the courts established by Congress do not contain the safeguards of Article III. Congress has created many "federal" courts, including those adjudicating issues of federal taxation, communication, and trade, by exercising its power under the enumerated powers of Article I, section 8 (including, for example, the "necessary and proper clause" found in Article I, sec. 8, para 18).
While it might seem unconstitutional for Congress to create courts that are technically "inferior" to the Supreme Court without providing them Article III protections, the Court has upheld these "legislative courts" or "Article I courts" since 1828. See American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 511 (1828).
Article I courts --sometimes called "administrative" courts-- are established to adjudicate petitions by US citizens or residents to specific departments of the executive branch. Uncontested purview includes Federal Claims, Social Security benefits and appeals, veterans benefits and appeals, US Tax Code prosecution and appeals, and military command and courts-martial. Incidentally, hardly anyone's but trial lawyers' most agitated complaints about the "independence" of these tribunals has penetrated innerboobs attention since, oh, 9/11.
Here is the interesting outline of Article I authorities and coordination with Article III headline "activism" from which I pulled the quote above. So I cannot help but wonder why the White House does not share the sense of urgency that grips its progressive colleagues. Perhaps the "inferior" courts' composition suits the immediate legal interests of the administration? Plenty time remains to finesse the unitary backboard. After all, Mr Obama isn't expected to begin campaigning in earnest for, what, another year and one half.
Possibly related fanbook: judicialnomination.org, ACS Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
Twank 'em. The GOP is waiting for a repeat of the Gingrich era, but without the politeness. Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
Frank Delaney ~ Ireland
