 |
| Opinion/Editorial |
Now the New York Times Editorial board has to whine about of all things court vacancies throughout our federal court system now they are legal experts what a joke.
The title of their lead OPED this morning is "Courts Without Judges" which should be the least of anyone's concerns.
It begins "The number of vacancies on the nation’s federal courts has reached an astonishingly high level, creating a serious shortage of judges and undermining the ability of the nation’s court system to bestow justice.Of 856 federal district and circuit court seats, 85 are unfilled — a 10 percent vacancy rate and nearly double the rate at this point in the presidency of George W. Bush. More than a third of the vacancies have been declared “judicial emergencies” based on court workloads and the length of time the seats have been empty. By far the most important cause of this unfortunate state of affairs is the determination of Senate Republicans, for reasons of politics, ideology and spite, to confirm as few of President Obama’s judicial choices as possible.Numbers compiled by the Senate Judiciary Committee tell the story. Mr. Obama’s nominees for seats on federal courts of appeal, the system’s top tier below the Supreme Court, have waited an average of 148 days for their confirmation vote following the committee’s approval, more than four times longer than Mr. Bush’s nominees. For Mr. Obama’s nominees to federal district courts, the average wait time has been 102 days, compared with 35 days for Mr. Bush’s district court choices."
When in doubt blame the Republicans same ol same ol from NYT.
It goes on "The prestigious and important United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit offers a particularly striking example of Republican obstructionism. The 11-seat court rules on most appeals from federal regulatory agencies and has exclusive jurisdiction over national security matters. It has four vacancies; the last time the Senate confirmed someone to the court was 2006.Mr. Bush appointed four judges to the court, a feeder to the Supreme Court, but whether the Senate will allow Mr. Obama to appoint any remains to be seen. Mr. Obama’s first nominee for the court, Caitlin Halligan, withdrew from consideration last month after Senate Republicans filibustered for a second time. Those critics echoed the National Rifle Association’s ridiculous portrayal of her as a legal activist outside the mainstream because she had filed a brief in opposition to the gun industry when she was New York State’s solicitor general.The real reason, as everyone knows, was to prevent Mr. Obama from adding balance to a generally conservative court. He may fare better with his latest nominee, Sri Srinivasan, a lawyer whose background working in the United States solicitor general’s office under both President Bush and President Obama should help his chances.Nominees for other important government posts have also been held up for partisan reasons. Some Republicans say this is simply payback for the Democrats’ filibustering of Bush nominees. But while neither party should be in the business of obstructing judicial nominees, unless they are unqualified or unacceptably extreme, a retaliatory response based on politics hurts all who rely on courts to protect their rights and uphold the law.It is also worth noting that Mr. Obama has not been putting forth candidates with strong ideological profiles. His nominees are decidedly moderate, which was not always true of the Bush judicial choices that the Democrats felt compelled to filibuster."
Here are the numbers according to the NYT's account
Mr. Obama could help reduce the problem by speeding up his nominations. The White House appears to have sharpened its focus since the election, but currently, 62 district and circuit court vacancies have no nominees. The Halligan filibuster got some Democratic senators talking about a bolder strategy, including revisiting filibuster reform and making it harder for senators to torpedo or delay nominations to judicial vacancies in their home states. Another proposal is to have Mr. Obama make simultaneous nominations to fill the four vacancies on the District of Columbia Circuit, which would force Republicans to come up with plausible reasons to oppose each of them. In the face of political paralysis, these ideas are worth embracing.
I'd like to make a point how about following the Constitution instead of making up rules as they go along from both sides of the political aisle in the Senate. And quit playing politics and get it done.
I can certainly understand the vacancies from the 9th Circuit Court which of course the NYT fails to mention is in California the most liberal whacked out circuit court in the country due to their past lame brained leftist decisions.
The title of their lead OPED this morning is "Courts Without Judges" which should be the least of anyone's concerns.
It begins "The number of vacancies on the nation’s federal courts has reached an astonishingly high level, creating a serious shortage of judges and undermining the ability of the nation’s court system to bestow justice.Of 856 federal district and circuit court seats, 85 are unfilled — a 10 percent vacancy rate and nearly double the rate at this point in the presidency of George W. Bush. More than a third of the vacancies have been declared “judicial emergencies” based on court workloads and the length of time the seats have been empty. By far the most important cause of this unfortunate state of affairs is the determination of Senate Republicans, for reasons of politics, ideology and spite, to confirm as few of President Obama’s judicial choices as possible.Numbers compiled by the Senate Judiciary Committee tell the story. Mr. Obama’s nominees for seats on federal courts of appeal, the system’s top tier below the Supreme Court, have waited an average of 148 days for their confirmation vote following the committee’s approval, more than four times longer than Mr. Bush’s nominees. For Mr. Obama’s nominees to federal district courts, the average wait time has been 102 days, compared with 35 days for Mr. Bush’s district court choices."
When in doubt blame the Republicans same ol same ol from NYT.
It goes on "The prestigious and important United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit offers a particularly striking example of Republican obstructionism. The 11-seat court rules on most appeals from federal regulatory agencies and has exclusive jurisdiction over national security matters. It has four vacancies; the last time the Senate confirmed someone to the court was 2006.Mr. Bush appointed four judges to the court, a feeder to the Supreme Court, but whether the Senate will allow Mr. Obama to appoint any remains to be seen. Mr. Obama’s first nominee for the court, Caitlin Halligan, withdrew from consideration last month after Senate Republicans filibustered for a second time. Those critics echoed the National Rifle Association’s ridiculous portrayal of her as a legal activist outside the mainstream because she had filed a brief in opposition to the gun industry when she was New York State’s solicitor general.The real reason, as everyone knows, was to prevent Mr. Obama from adding balance to a generally conservative court. He may fare better with his latest nominee, Sri Srinivasan, a lawyer whose background working in the United States solicitor general’s office under both President Bush and President Obama should help his chances.Nominees for other important government posts have also been held up for partisan reasons. Some Republicans say this is simply payback for the Democrats’ filibustering of Bush nominees. But while neither party should be in the business of obstructing judicial nominees, unless they are unqualified or unacceptably extreme, a retaliatory response based on politics hurts all who rely on courts to protect their rights and uphold the law.It is also worth noting that Mr. Obama has not been putting forth candidates with strong ideological profiles. His nominees are decidedly moderate, which was not always true of the Bush judicial choices that the Democrats felt compelled to filibuster."
Here are the numbers according to the NYT's account
Mr. Obama could help reduce the problem by speeding up his nominations. The White House appears to have sharpened its focus since the election, but currently, 62 district and circuit court vacancies have no nominees. The Halligan filibuster got some Democratic senators talking about a bolder strategy, including revisiting filibuster reform and making it harder for senators to torpedo or delay nominations to judicial vacancies in their home states. Another proposal is to have Mr. Obama make simultaneous nominations to fill the four vacancies on the District of Columbia Circuit, which would force Republicans to come up with plausible reasons to oppose each of them. In the face of political paralysis, these ideas are worth embracing.
I'd like to make a point how about following the Constitution instead of making up rules as they go along from both sides of the political aisle in the Senate. And quit playing politics and get it done.
I can certainly understand the vacancies from the 9th Circuit Court which of course the NYT fails to mention is in California the most liberal whacked out circuit court in the country due to their past lame brained leftist decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment