Obama on pace to seat fewest judges in president's 1st year in office

[scandal 951]

The late breaking news is that apparently Democrats were able to overcome a Republican filibuster on the Hamilton appointment today.

Still, the partisanship on what has historically always been viewed by both parties as a presidential prerogative is very concerning.

It was concerning to me when Democrats threatened to filibuster credible and viable Bush appointees, just as much as the reverse concerns me today.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-...,0,601212.story

Judicial nominations: Obama on pace to seat fewest judges in president's 1st year in office

Resistance from GOP slows confirmation of Chicago appeals court nominee

WASHINGTON - -- Despite a solid Democratic majority in the Senate, President Barack Obama is on pace to set a record for the fewest judges confirmed during a president's first year in office.

Just six of Obama's nominees to the lower federal courts have won approval. President George W. Bush had 28 judges confirmed in his first year in office, even though Democrats held a narrow majority. President Bill Clinton put 27 new judges on the bench in his first year.

The slow pace has gotten little attention while Congress has fought over health care and the economy.

But liberal activists have voiced growing irritation that Republicans are using their minority power to block Senate votes on judicial nominees. They note that during the Bush administration, Republicans insisted that the president's nominees deserved a vote.

"This has become more bitter and more partisan than the Clinton years," said Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice, a liberal advocacy organization. "It is obstructionism across the board."

The dispute came to a head Tuesday, as the Senate voted 70-29 to limit debate on the qualifications of Judge David Hamilton of Indiana, Obama's first court nominee. His confirmation seems assured, requiring a simple majority of the 100-member Senate.

In mid-March, the White House trumpeted Hamilton's nomination to the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago as an example of "setting a new tone" and putting "the confirmation wars behind us."

But Hamilton ran into a buzz saw of criticism from conservative activists. They noted he had worked for the American Civil Liberties Union before becoming a judge in 1994. And they objected in particular to two of his judicial decisions.

Some Republicans also said that they were not obliged to allow a vote, saying Democrats had blocked qualified Bush picks.

In June, Hamilton passed the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote. Republicans have since refused to permit a floor vote.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., described the fight over Hamilton as part of an ideological struggle over the judiciary. "We are in a struggle to determine whether or not the classical Western tradition of law will continue to exist."

Liberal advocates scoffed at the notion that Hamilton was extreme.

"This is a terrific first nominee, a brilliant young judge with bipartisan support in Indiana," said Douglas Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center. "In any normal world, he should be confirmed easily and unanimously."

[justashooter 430]

thank god for small miracles.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And I still hear the GOP screaming bloody murder when Bush's nominees didn't get a swift up-or-down vote in the Senate. They denounced the very idea of filibustering the President's nominees and now they set a new record doing just that. What a bunch of hypocrites.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The best thing about Obama and his gang of thieves in Congress is he has really done almost nothing, (does this surprise anyone?) including seat judges. Yeeee haaaaaaa! Only three years to go PrezBo...keep up the lazy work.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

WHAT???? As my Ukrainain why would say "Vooooowhat?"

The "Democrats" (with a 60 seat majority +Olympia Snowe ) were able to overcome a "Republican" filibuster???? Seems like there may have been just a few Democrats in on that also.

Given the Presidency and a commanding majority of BOTH house of Congress...what do they do? Nothing. Who is stopping them from de-funding the war, something they passed over and over when Bush was President but got vetoed. Why haven't they sent THAT to PrezBo? What happened to the daily anti-war protests in Burlington? Why is Guantanamo still open?

This guy is the biggest bag-o-wind that ever walked. All "hope" and no action. y the way, this is the United states and we don't need "hope". Somalia needs "hope". Myanmar needs hope. We do not. we need the bloodsucking government to get out of the way.

I mean #######!!!!!!!! Nothing.

[Dan J 277]

The best thing about Obama and his gang of thieves in Congress is he has really done almost nothing, (does this surprise anyone?) including seat judges. Yeeee haaaaaaa! Only three years to go PrezBo...keep up the lazy work.

It used to be that for the most part, all you needed was a simple majority to pass most things. Filibusters were used rarely.

But now after Republicans threatened to get rid of it just a few years ago, its now their best friend, and they are moving to block anything and everything they can.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

How about it, Orrin? You like to be - to say it with your own words - "unfair, dangerous, partisan and unconstitutional"? What happened to the Senate's historical standard for judicial nominations you identified as "Let's make our case if we have disagreement, and then vote."

January 12, 2005, 7:29 a.m.

Crisis Mode

A fair and constitutional option to beat the filibuster game.

By Senator Orrin G. Hatch

Judicial nominations will be one of the most important issues facing the Senate in the 109th Congress and the question is whether we will return to the tradition of giving nominations reaching the Senate floor an up or down vote. The filibusters used to block such votes have mired the judicial-confirmation process in a political and constitutional crisis that undermines democracy, the judiciary, the Senate, and the Constitution. The Senate has in the past changed its procedures to rebalance the minority's right to debate and the majority's right to decide and it must do so again.

Newspaper editorials condemning the filibusters outnumber supporting ones by more than six-to-one. Last November, South Dakotans retired former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, in no small part, because he led the filibuster forces. Yet within hours of his election to succeed Senator Daschle as Minority Leader, Senator Harry Reid took to the Senate floor to defend them. Hope is fading that the shrinking Democratic minority will abandon its destructive course of using filibusters to defeat majority supported judicial nominations. Their failure to do so will require a deliberate solution.

DIAGNOSING THE CRISIS

If these filibusters were part of the Senate's historical practice or, as a recent NRO editorial put it, merely made confirming nominees more difficult, a deliberate solution might not be warranted. But this is a crisis, not a problem of inconvenience.

Senate rules reflect an emphasis on deliberation and debate. Either by unanimous agreement or at least 60 votes on a motion to invoke cloture under Rule 22, the Senate must end debate before it can vote on anything. From the Spanish filibustero, a filibuster was a mercenary who tries to destabilize a government. A filibuster occurs most plainly on the Senate floor when efforts to end debate fail, either by objection to unanimous consent or defeat of a cloture motion. During the 108th Congress, Senate Democrats defeated ten majority-supported nominations to the U.S. Court of Appeals by objecting to every unanimous consent request and defeating every cloture motion. This tactic made good on then-Democratic Leader Tom Daschle's February 2001 vow to use "whatever means necessary" to defeat judicial nominations. These filibusters are unprecedented, unfair, dangerous, partisan, and unconstitutional.