http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15judicial.html?th&emc=th
All,
There are continuing ominous signs that a corrosive and paralyzing political inertia has begun to seep into Obama's administration as far as making assertive public policy decisions and acting decisively on key appointments in government are concerned. If the President doesn't take full--and progressive-- command of this drifting ship fairly quickly (and I mean within the next 6-8 months) his first term agenda will be burnt toast by the time the midterm congressional and senatorial elections in 2010 take place-- and that can only mean very bad news for the rest of us...Stay tuned....
Kofi
November 15, 2009
Obama Backers Fear Opportunities to Reshape Judiciary Are Slipping Away
By Charlie Savage
New York Times
WASHINGTON — President Obama has sent the Senate far fewer judicial nominations than former President George W. Bush did in his first 10 months in office, deflating the hopes of liberals that the White House would move quickly to reshape the federal judiciary after eight years of Republican appointments.
Mr. Bush, who made it an early goal to push conservatives into the judicial pipeline and left a strong stamp on the courts, had already nominated 28 appellate and 36 district candidates at a comparable point in his tenure. By contrast, Mr. Obama has offered 12 nominations to appeals courts and 14 to district courts.
Theodore Shaw, a Columbia University law professor who until recently led the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., said liberals feared that the White House was not taking advantage of its chance to fill vacancies while Democrats enjoy a razor-thin advantage in the Senate enabling them to cut off the threat of filibusters against nominees. There are nearly 100 vacancies on federal courts.
“It’s not any secret that among the civil rights community and other folks there has been a growing concern about the pace of nominations and confirmations,” Mr. Shaw said. “You have to move fairly quickly because things are going to shut down before you know it, given that next year is an election year and who knows what is going to happen in the midterm elections. No one wants a blown opportunity.”
The departure of the White House counsel, Gregory B. Craig, announced on Friday, raises another concern: a leadership vacuum may be forming at the highest ranks of the administration’s judicial selection team. The administration also recently announced that Cassandra Butts, a deputy White House counsel who had played a leading role in judicial nominations, is leaving.
In addition, no one has been confirmed as head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, which helps vet judges; Mr. Obama’s nomination of Christopher Schroeder for the position remains stalled in the Senate.
The White House contends that the number of confirmations, not nominations, is what matters. They argue that they were proceeding more methodically than Mr. Bush’s team — in ways like making a greater effort to consult with home-state senators — and so a higher percentage of Mr. Obama’s nominees would ultimately become judges.
“The administration expects to keep pace with the judicial confirmations of the two previous administrations,” said Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman. “We have moved beyond the confirmation wars of the past, consulted with senators of both parties and nominated exceptional and highly qualified people who will bring diverse backgrounds and experiences to the bench.”
By this point in 2001, the Senate had confirmed five of Mr. Bush’s appellate judges — although one was a Clinton pick whom Mr. Bush had renominated — and 13 of his district judges. By contrast, Mr. Obama has received Senate approval of just two appellate and four district judges.
Those numbers could rise rapidly. Four appellate and four district court nominees have cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and are waiting for floor votes. Democrats have accused Republicans of stalling them by raising obstacles to votes on uncontroversial nominees. Republicans counter that Democrats, too, used procedural tactics to slow or block some Bush nominees.
There has been some recent movement. Last Monday, the Senate confirmed Andre Davis to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, shifting the balance on the Richmond-based panel — once considered the nation’s most conservative — to a majority appointed by Democrats.
And on Tuesday, Democrats moved to vote on confirming David Hamilton as an appeals court judge for the Seventh Circuit, based in Chicago. The nominations of both Mr. Davis and Mr. Hamilton had been stalled before the full Senate for five months.
Still, the pipeline behind them is emptier than under Mr. Bush. And Mr. Obama has not submitted nominees to fill two vacancies on the powerful District of Columbia appeals court, which has no home senators to consult. Administration officials said they had focused on courts with larger shortages of judges relative to caseloads.
Mr. Obama’s appeals court record compares somewhat more favorably to former President Bill Clinton’s. By Nov. 20, 1993, Mr. Clinton had sent the Senate five appellate nominees, and four of them had already been confirmed. And he had made 42 district court nominations, of whom 24 had been confirmed.
M. Edward Whelan III, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, said it was “surprising” that Mr. Obama had made so few nominations.
“On judges as on so much else, this administration seems to be much less competent than both its supporters and critics expected,” Mr. Whelan said.
Unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama had an early Supreme Court vacancy, and his team expended significant effort in the selection and confirmation of the new justice, Sonia Sotomayor. Similarly, Mr. Clinton’s first year included Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s confirmation.
Still, the time Supreme Court nominations require has added to liberal anxieties. If, as anticipated, there is another Supreme Court vacancy in 2010, there could be scant time left for lower-court judgeships.
The administration’s nominations team is reviewing potential Supreme Court picks, but officials have disclosed few details. They also would not discuss plans to replace Ms. Butts. Two associate White House counsels who worked with her on judges — Susan Davies and Danielle Gray — remain in place.
Liberals also complain that the Obama team’s selections have been too moderate to counterbalance the strongly conservative appointees of Republican presidents, echoing an accusation they made during the Clinton administration.
Former Clinton officials have defended themselves against that contention, pointing out that Republicans controlled the Senate after 1994 and saying that they were also focused on finding nominees who could increase diversity on the federal bench.
Obama officials, too, point with pride to their record on diversity. Of Mr. Obama’s 12 appellate nominees, six are women, four are black, one is Asian and one is Hispanic. By contrast, about two-thirds of Mr. Bush’s nominees were white men.
But Mr. Obama raised eyebrows among liberal groups by nominating Albert Diaz to the Fourth Circuit, where he would be the first Hispanic. Mr. Diaz is a North Carolina business court judge who, at his former law firm, made his name in part by defending the tobacco giant Philip Morris, an unlikely résumé item for a Democratic appointee.
White House officials said it would be unfair to define Mr. Diaz as a tobacco lawyer, noting that he had had many other clients, had a long career as a military lawyer and did hundreds of hours of volunteer work representing indigent clients.
The officials also spoke of the administration’s approach of quietly announcing a nomination every few weeks, in contrast to Mr. Bush’s making a political event of announcing his first group of appellate nominees in May 2001.
But Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, warned that picking moderate judges and low-key tactics might not work.
“It’s a mistake to think that by going slower and lessening the visibility of nominations, Republican acrimony will be reduced,” she said. “It didn’t work with Clinton and it won’t work now because Republicans will do everything in their power to hold open as many seats as they can for a future president to fill.”
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
All,
There are continuing ominous signs that a corrosive and paralyzing political inertia has begun to seep into Obama's administration as far as making assertive public policy decisions and acting decisively on key appointments in government are concerned. If the President doesn't take full--and progressive-- command of this drifting ship fairly quickly (and I mean within the next 6-8 months) his first term agenda will be burnt toast by the time the midterm congressional and senatorial elections in 2010 take place-- and that can only mean very bad news for the rest of us...Stay tuned....
Kofi
November 15, 2009
Obama Backers Fear Opportunities to Reshape Judiciary Are Slipping Away
By Charlie Savage
New York Times
WASHINGTON — President Obama has sent the Senate far fewer judicial nominations than former President George W. Bush did in his first 10 months in office, deflating the hopes of liberals that the White House would move quickly to reshape the federal judiciary after eight years of Republican appointments.
Mr. Bush, who made it an early goal to push conservatives into the judicial pipeline and left a strong stamp on the courts, had already nominated 28 appellate and 36 district candidates at a comparable point in his tenure. By contrast, Mr. Obama has offered 12 nominations to appeals courts and 14 to district courts.
Theodore Shaw, a Columbia University law professor who until recently led the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., said liberals feared that the White House was not taking advantage of its chance to fill vacancies while Democrats enjoy a razor-thin advantage in the Senate enabling them to cut off the threat of filibusters against nominees. There are nearly 100 vacancies on federal courts.
“It’s not any secret that among the civil rights community and other folks there has been a growing concern about the pace of nominations and confirmations,” Mr. Shaw said. “You have to move fairly quickly because things are going to shut down before you know it, given that next year is an election year and who knows what is going to happen in the midterm elections. No one wants a blown opportunity.”
The departure of the White House counsel, Gregory B. Craig, announced on Friday, raises another concern: a leadership vacuum may be forming at the highest ranks of the administration’s judicial selection team. The administration also recently announced that Cassandra Butts, a deputy White House counsel who had played a leading role in judicial nominations, is leaving.
In addition, no one has been confirmed as head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, which helps vet judges; Mr. Obama’s nomination of Christopher Schroeder for the position remains stalled in the Senate.
The White House contends that the number of confirmations, not nominations, is what matters. They argue that they were proceeding more methodically than Mr. Bush’s team — in ways like making a greater effort to consult with home-state senators — and so a higher percentage of Mr. Obama’s nominees would ultimately become judges.
“The administration expects to keep pace with the judicial confirmations of the two previous administrations,” said Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman. “We have moved beyond the confirmation wars of the past, consulted with senators of both parties and nominated exceptional and highly qualified people who will bring diverse backgrounds and experiences to the bench.”
By this point in 2001, the Senate had confirmed five of Mr. Bush’s appellate judges — although one was a Clinton pick whom Mr. Bush had renominated — and 13 of his district judges. By contrast, Mr. Obama has received Senate approval of just two appellate and four district judges.
Those numbers could rise rapidly. Four appellate and four district court nominees have cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and are waiting for floor votes. Democrats have accused Republicans of stalling them by raising obstacles to votes on uncontroversial nominees. Republicans counter that Democrats, too, used procedural tactics to slow or block some Bush nominees.
There has been some recent movement. Last Monday, the Senate confirmed Andre Davis to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, shifting the balance on the Richmond-based panel — once considered the nation’s most conservative — to a majority appointed by Democrats.
And on Tuesday, Democrats moved to vote on confirming David Hamilton as an appeals court judge for the Seventh Circuit, based in Chicago. The nominations of both Mr. Davis and Mr. Hamilton had been stalled before the full Senate for five months.
Still, the pipeline behind them is emptier than under Mr. Bush. And Mr. Obama has not submitted nominees to fill two vacancies on the powerful District of Columbia appeals court, which has no home senators to consult. Administration officials said they had focused on courts with larger shortages of judges relative to caseloads.
Mr. Obama’s appeals court record compares somewhat more favorably to former President Bill Clinton’s. By Nov. 20, 1993, Mr. Clinton had sent the Senate five appellate nominees, and four of them had already been confirmed. And he had made 42 district court nominations, of whom 24 had been confirmed.
M. Edward Whelan III, president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, said it was “surprising” that Mr. Obama had made so few nominations.
“On judges as on so much else, this administration seems to be much less competent than both its supporters and critics expected,” Mr. Whelan said.
Unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama had an early Supreme Court vacancy, and his team expended significant effort in the selection and confirmation of the new justice, Sonia Sotomayor. Similarly, Mr. Clinton’s first year included Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s confirmation.
Still, the time Supreme Court nominations require has added to liberal anxieties. If, as anticipated, there is another Supreme Court vacancy in 2010, there could be scant time left for lower-court judgeships.
The administration’s nominations team is reviewing potential Supreme Court picks, but officials have disclosed few details. They also would not discuss plans to replace Ms. Butts. Two associate White House counsels who worked with her on judges — Susan Davies and Danielle Gray — remain in place.
Liberals also complain that the Obama team’s selections have been too moderate to counterbalance the strongly conservative appointees of Republican presidents, echoing an accusation they made during the Clinton administration.
Former Clinton officials have defended themselves against that contention, pointing out that Republicans controlled the Senate after 1994 and saying that they were also focused on finding nominees who could increase diversity on the federal bench.
Obama officials, too, point with pride to their record on diversity. Of Mr. Obama’s 12 appellate nominees, six are women, four are black, one is Asian and one is Hispanic. By contrast, about two-thirds of Mr. Bush’s nominees were white men.
But Mr. Obama raised eyebrows among liberal groups by nominating Albert Diaz to the Fourth Circuit, where he would be the first Hispanic. Mr. Diaz is a North Carolina business court judge who, at his former law firm, made his name in part by defending the tobacco giant Philip Morris, an unlikely résumé item for a Democratic appointee.
White House officials said it would be unfair to define Mr. Diaz as a tobacco lawyer, noting that he had had many other clients, had a long career as a military lawyer and did hundreds of hours of volunteer work representing indigent clients.
The officials also spoke of the administration’s approach of quietly announcing a nomination every few weeks, in contrast to Mr. Bush’s making a political event of announcing his first group of appellate nominees in May 2001.
But Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, warned that picking moderate judges and low-key tactics might not work.
“It’s a mistake to think that by going slower and lessening the visibility of nominations, Republican acrimony will be reduced,” she said. “It didn’t work with Clinton and it won’t work now because Republicans will do everything in their power to hold open as many seats as they can for a future president to fill.”
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
