Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Continuing the "tit for tat" in the Senate.
On Judicial Confirmations — History and NumbersPartisans in judicial nomination fights like to play the victim. As each side tells it, obstruction of judicial nominees is all the other side’s fault. Each act of contemporary obstruction is justified by some act of obstruction that came before. The reality, however, is that there are no clean hands in these fights any more. For over twenty-five years the two parties have been engaged in an escalating game of tit-for-tat. Each time the tables are turned, the opposition party retaliates in kind, and then some. Given the reactions to my post yesterday on judicial nominations, I thought it would be worth recounting the history (as I have before) — with the relevant data — and then to explain what it means. I’ll follow this up with a post on what I think should be done, in light of this history, to end the obstruction of judicial nominees.
In the context of appellate nominations, Senate Democrats decided to begin opposing some of President Reagan’s nominees in 1986. Although they did not frame their opposition in ideological terms, this initial effort was clearly motivated by a desire to prevent the Reagan Administration from stocking the courts with judicial nominees who shared the administration’s conservative judicial philosophy. This initial effort yielded a few victories — a few nominees were defeated (including Jeff Sessions, who now sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee) — but 88 percent of Reagan’s appellate nominees were confirmed. Efforts to block conservative judicial nominees by delaying confirmation increased during the latter half of George H. W. Bush’s Administration and, as a consequence, only 79 percent of his appellate nominees were confirmed. (Data on confirmation rates are taken from this Brookings Institution report by Russell Wheeler.)
President Clinton’s nominees had relatively smooth sailing during his first two years, when Senate Democrats held the majority, but his administration was relatively slow to make nominations. As data available from the Federal Judicial Center shows, at the end of his first year in office, President Clinton had named nominees for fewer than twenty percent of judicial vacancies. For the twenty appellate vacancies in November 1993, Clinton had only named two nominees. The Clinton Administration’s failure to move on judicial nominations became a problem when Republicans took the Senate in 1994. With fewer nominees in the confirmation pipeline, it was relatively easy for Republicans to keep Clinton’s confirmation numbers down. All they had to do was slow down the process — and they did.
more at the link including President Obama's success / failure rate of nominees..
13 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
