• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« The Morning Wrap | Main | Dickstein Shapiro Partner Elected to Navy League of the U.S. »

August 09, 2012



Sometimes controversy exists for other reasons than being extremely liberal or extremely conservative.

But such controversies tend to get lost in the shuffle - except at the Supreme Court level, or where some prominent pundit or tabloid picks up on it - and so "controversial" nominees usually prove to be called that simply because the opponents cast the nominee as "extreme."

In my own view, Democrats are far less quick to call a right-winger "extreme" - and far more willing to confirm them if they aren't controversial for any other reason. (Just consider how often Rachel Maddow is amused, rather than extremely upset, by conservatives she calls extreme - and how often Rush Limbaugh is irate when he mentions anyone liberal.) And in my own view, Democratic presidents since LBJ are far less likely to nominate an extremist.

Nominees should be appointed on merit, and confirmed regardless of "controversy."


"Were any of Bush's controversial
judges as offensively extreme to liberals"

Yes...Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen tie for the gold medal in that dept..If Goodwin Liu deserved a filibuster, then these 2 CERTIANLY should have been...That's the problem with Democrats, they try to play nice with Republican judicial nominees..Then, what is the thank you they get - Liu and Halligan filibustered...

Furthermore, there have been several Obama Circuit Court nominees that didn't even get a hearing incl. Edward DuMont, Victoria Nourse, Stephen Six, Robert Chitgny, perhaps 1-2 others...

And another thing, the Senate just went on recess...They could have and should have confirmed 5-10 non-controversial District Court nominess....The GOP allowed only one...In years past, a whole host of judicial nominees would be confirmed before a recess....Bush had 17 District Court nominees confirmed on a single day once 11/14/02 and another 10 (on a single day) on 9/26/08...Liberals would throw a block party if we could get more than 5 confirmed on a single day...The GOP has played real hardball (not the show on MSNBC) with Obama's judicial nominees from denying hearings, filibustering nominees, and not allowing more than 5 confirmations on a single day..


You clearly follow this closer than I, nonetheless, I esteem the issue not to
be a question of how "controversial" a nominee may be, but how offensive
to the other side—i.e. how "extreme".

A conservative such as myself wonders: Were any of Bush's controversial
judges as offensively extreme to liberals as Goodwin Liu was to the other side?

Arizona criminal lawyer

keep the wise posts coming, i'm taking notes over here!


President Obama's Circuit court nominees are mostly those who are confirmed 98-0..In other words, they haven't been controversial...Whereas Bush had PLENTY of nominees who were confirmed 55-45, etc...

The difference between Bush nominees and Obama nominees with regards to the Circuit Court is that Bush was allowed to have controversial nominees confirmed (Brown, Pryor, Cavanaugh, Owen) whereas Obama is only getting consenous (Circuit) court nominees thru...Also, Bush had FOUR DC Circuit confirmations, Obama won't have one DC Circuit confirmation in his first term..

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad