The Politics of the Federal Bench

[cal04]

Obama's Appointments Are Expected To Reshape the U.S. Legal Landscape
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/07/AR2008120702703.html?hpid=topnews

The federal judiciary is on the verge of a major shift when President-elect Barack Obama's nominees take control of several of the nation's most important appellate courts, legal scholars and political activists say. With the Supreme Court's conservative direction unlikely to change anytime soon, it is the lower courts -- which dispense almost all federal justice -- where Obama can assert his greatest influence.

The change will be most striking on the Richmond-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, long a conservative bastion and an influential voice on national security cases, where four vacancies will lead to a clear Democratic majority. Democrats are expected to soon gain a narrower plurality on the New York-based 2nd Circuit, vital for business and terrorism cases, a more even split on the influential D.C. appeals court and control of the 3rd Circuit, which covers Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Although Republican control will probably persist on a majority of appellate courts for at least several years, some experts say that by the end of Obama's term, he and the Democratic Congress will flip the 56 percent majority Republican nominees now exert over those highly influential bodies.

"Obama has a huge opportunity," said Arthur Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh law professor who is an authority on federal courts. "In a very short time, significant segments of the appellate courts, which are the final authority in all but a tiny handful of cases, will be dominated by Democratic nominees."

The new judges might gradually reshape what many see as a conservative drift in the courts under the Bush administration and issue more moderate-to-liberal rulings in the ideologically charged cases that have fueled the struggle for control of the judiciary. Many judges are independent, and party affiliation is not a perfect predictor of their behavior. Still, studies have shown that Democratic and Republican nominees vote differently on such cultural issues as abortion and gay rights, along with civil rights, environmental law and capital punishment.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. I sure as hell hope so...

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. What IS that sound I hear? It's faint. It's coming from far away.

I do believe it's the sound of The Federalist Society attempting to swallow their own tongues, en masse.

[Doctor_J]

3. The Senate will filibuster most of Obama's appointments

When clinton left office there were a lot of empty spots on the Federal bench because Repukes refused to confirm dozens and dozens of Clinton's nominees. It will be the same this time around.

What Obama should do is declare, out loud, that if the Senate refuses to vote on nominees, the Supreme court will suddenly grow from 9 justices to 11 (that's legal), and Fat Tony and Slappy will be an insignificant minority.

[onenote]

4. not exactly accurate - and your "solution" makes no sense at all

During Clinton's first term around 200 judges were confirmed by the Senate,which was in the hands of the Democrats for the first two years. Things slowed dramatically in his second term, as repubs refused to move nominations. But they didn't do it through the filibuster, they did it by holding the nominations in committee. In fact, filibusters have rarely been used with respect to federal judicial nominees, by either party.

Obama will not have much difficulty in getting nominations confirmed with a strong majority in the senate,even if its not "filibuster proof".

And your solution makes no sense. If the repubs could successfully filibuster Obama's nominees for lower courts, they certainly could and would filibuster legislation to increase the size of the SCOTUS. The president doesn't have the power to unilaterally change the size of the court -- it takes an act of Congress.