• Home
  • News
  • Obama Too Cautious on Judge Picks?

Judiciary

Obama Too Cautious on Judge Picks?

Posted Oct 16, 2009 4:02 AM CST
By Molly McDonough

President Obama is being criticized as being too cautious, moving too tentatively, to infuse the federal courts with a new roster of judges.

In his first nine months, Obama has won confirmation of just three of 23 nominations for federal judgeships. The Washington Post notes that even though the Senate is controlled by Democrats, the Republicans have been able to use anonymous holds and filibuster threats to slow proceedings.

But some Democrats aren't just blaming the GOP. Rather, critics blame Obama's bi-partisanship emphasis as having emboldened Republicans to dig in.

"I commend the president's effort to change the tone in Washington," Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, is quoted saying. "I recognize that he is extending an olive branch to Republicans on the Judiciary Committee and in the Senate overall. But so far, his efforts at reconciliation have been met with partisan hostility."

Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, says the pace needs to quicken for political reasons: "It is incumbent on the Democrats and the White House to push as hard as they can to confirm judicial nominees, given that next year Republicans will make an all-out effort to block candidates as a means to gin up their base before the election."

Meanwhile, caseloads continue to back up, with 90 vacant seats on appellate and district courts.

The White House tells the Post that it expects nominations and confirmations to pick up soon.

"The administration has been working closely with members of Congress to identify a set of uniquely qualified judicial nominees with diverse professional experiences," Ben LaBolt, an Obama spokesman, tells the paper. "This process has been bipartisan and we have made every effort to make confirmation wars a thing of the past."

Comments

1.

Colin
Oct 16, 2009 7:03 AM CST

I love modern America. 

Let’s fight to get as many biased ideologues on the bench before the grown ups come home.

Flag this comment

2.

B. McLeod
Oct 16, 2009 7:17 AM CST

What are “anonymous holds”?  Also, if they are “anonymous,” how do we know “Republicans” are responsible for all of them?

Flag this comment

3.

associate
Oct 16, 2009 8:54 AM CST

Obama’s bipartisanship is the problem?

Was the the problem with socialized medicine as well?  What about cap and tax?

And “anonymous holds and filibuster threats”?  Why haven’t we read about any of these?  How do you know they happened if they’re this closed door cloak and dagger stuff as you’re claiming?

There was this time in this place called America where there was this concept called journalism.  It held that publications printed facts to keep people informed.

This entire article is only three lines long:
1.  90 vacant seats
2.  Senate is controlled by Democrats
3.  confirmation of just three of 23 nominations for federal judgeships

Flag this comment

4.

AndytheLawyer
Oct 16, 2009 11:50 AM CST

Obama hasn’t yet figured out what Lyndon Johnson knew well.  You need to be willing to crack heads to get what you want—particularly when the opposition party’s primary objective is to ensure that nothing you want to get done gets done.  Obama will be fine once he figures out that “bipartisanship” is a losing tactic.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.