Show Me the Judges

[usregimechange]

Last time I visited the question of judicial nominations, there were 50 district court and six court of appeals vacancies for which Barack Obama had not even nominated anyone. That was two months ago. Today? District court vacancies without a nominee have reached 53; circuit court vacancies without a nominee are up to 9.

Why? No idea. Yes, Republicans are obstructing judicial (and exec branch) nominations in the Senate. Why shouldn't they? After all, Obama has signaled again and again that he doesn't really care about them. Yes, Harry Reid could have pushed harder to move these nominations to a floor vote, but it seems to me that judicial nominations are much more of an issue for presidential constituencies, not Congressional constituencies. In other words, the Senate isn't particularly likely to push hard on them unless the president makes it a priority. Obama, no question about it, has not. Every week that goes by in which he doesn't even bother to nominate anyone for all those openings is a week in which he signals to Senators that his administration just doesn't care very much about the courts.

Not that the Senate is doing a very good job. By my count, five appeals court nominees and twelve district court nominees are ready for floor action; one (Jane Stranch, for the 6th circuit) is scheduled for action when the Senate returns, but the rest remain in limbo. Which leaves 22 waiting for the Judiciary Committee to clear them.

One more culprit: liberal interest groups. Where's the outcry from feminists? From the civil rights community? From gay rights activists? From labor, for that matter -- labor put a lot of effort into NLRB picks, with good reason, but the truth is that a full slate of Obama-selected circuit court picks could easily be more important over time than the NLRB on labor issues. The same goes for issues surrounding torture, detention, and privacy -- even if some advocates in those areas are skeptical of Elena Kagan, they still should be pushing for at least the nominees they like to be confirmed, and for more in that vein to be selected. Instead of what Obama is presenting them with now, which is in far too many cases nothing at all. As I said, judicial nominations are probably more of an issue for national constituencies than for local ones, and if those national constituencies don't squawk, well, that could explain some of the president's (and the Senate's) apparent lack of concern.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/77276/show-me-the-judges

[Bluebear]

1. Well, the outcry from gay rights activists is being firmly ignored. There's one answer.

[LiberalAndProud]

2. $$

Judges who retire under the judicial retirement plans generally continue to receive the full salary amounts that were paid immediately before retirement, assuming the judges met the age and service requirements.

[w4rma]

3. Obama doesn't need the "Professional Left". We are retards who need to be drug tested! (nt)