Political Animal
Blog
It’s just one small front in a major war over appointments, in which an administration that hasn’t often made such matters a priority is confronting a Republican oppositon that definitely has. But it’s still a bit shocking that Barack Obama has yet to place anyone on the most important federal court other than the Big One, the 11-seat D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has three current openings.
Here’s the story from Reuters’ Joan Biskopic:
Barack Obama is close to becoming the first president in at least half a century to finish a full term without making an appointment to a U.S. appeals court, considered second in importance only to the Supreme Court.
When the U.S. Senate returns next week, a new chapter in the fight over judicial nominations will begin, with the stakes especially high for the Washington, D.C.-based court that hears challenges to government regulations, including those on environmental law and civil rights. The D.C. Circuit, as it is called, is also often a springboard to the Supreme Court where four of the current nine justices served on the D.C. Circuit….
Senate Republicans blocked the Democratic president’s one nominee to the D.C. Circuit in December, and the administration has yet to offer any new candidates.
“It is now getting almost too late for this presidential term, especially in the thick of an election year,” said University of North Carolina law professor Michael Gerhardt, who has studied nominations and was special counsel to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy during the Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan Supreme Court confirmations….
Of the eight active judges on the D.C. Circuit, five are appointees of Republican presidents, three of Democratic presidents. Although the court has 11 members, it routinely hears cases in three-judge panels, assigned randomly to cases, as do other federal appeals courts throughout the country.
These are, of course, lifetime appointments, and the ability to make them is an important part of any president’s legacy. If the president is re-elected, perhaps the delays in appointments and in confirmations for the D.C. Circuit won’t matter in the long run. If he loses, however…I somehow doubt the Romney or Santorum administration will make filling these vacancies quite so low a priority.
Facebook
Twitter
T2 on February 24, 2012 5:24 PM:
the Big One is chicken feed if the Crazy GOPers get the WH.....there will be two Supreme Court vacancies to fill probably....at least one. Imagine who Santorum would nominate.
jonas on February 24, 2012 5:30 PM:
Imagine who Santorum would nominate.
*shudders*
He'd probably try Bork again if he thought he had the votes. After that, I don't know -- dig up the remains of Tomas de Torquemada?
TT on February 24, 2012 6:25 PM:
"If the president is re-elected, perhaps the delays in appointments and in confirmations for the D.C. Circuit won’t matter in the long run."
I hope I'm wrong, but I believe Republicans will double-down on their obstruction tactics should Obama win re-election and Democrats keep the Senate. Mitch McConnell & Co. will use every trick in the book to bottle up judicial appointments in committee. And if Obama wins and the GOP takes the Senate, then what they did under Clinton from 1995-2001 will look like a t-ball game by comparison. Judicial appointments matter to the GOP every bit as much as taxes and union-busting.
pjcamp on February 25, 2012 2:13 AM:
On the other hand, what makes us think that he will have any more sense of urgency in a second term than he had in his first?
I've learned to think that Obama is not playing a long game. He's all surface. He does what he does for the reasons that are obvious.
So if he doesn't bother to appoint federal court justices, it is because he thinks he has more important things to worry about.
And that's just stupid.
Big River Bandido on February 25, 2012 10:32 AM:
Have to agree with pjcamp. You can't trod out that old saw "what about the Supreme Court?" only at election times. When opportunities to mold the courts come along, Democratic presidents must be aggressive about fighting to reshape them. If they don't, they've simply undercut the entire political argument that people should vote for Democrats "because of the courts".