New Study Finds Obama Had Some Success with Circuit Court Nominees

In a new study, an expert on federal judicial nominations has tried to inject some hard data into the sometimes overheated debate about President Barack Obama's record on filling the bench.

What Russell Wheeler found: "Obama's not doing so bad, as far as appeals court nominees go."

Wheeler, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, wanted to cut through the Senate debates, where both sides are throwing out statistics on confirmations to support their arguments. Democrats blame Republicans for being obstructionist; Republicans say Obama's nominees have been treated fairly compared with those from other presidents.

"There's just so much rhetoric that surrounds this, and it's sloppy rhetoric at this point, from both sides," Wheeler said.

Wheeler says Obama's circuit court confirmations are on par with previous presidents. His 30 confirmations match President Bill Clinton's first-term record and are four below President George W. Bush’s first term.

And Obama's appellate court confirmations have altered the balance in federal circuit courts, Wheeler said in his paper.

As of Aug. 2, 81 of the 165 circuit judges in active status, or 49 percent, are Democratic appointees. When Obama took office, 65 of those 165 judges, or 39 percent, were Democratic appointees.

"In January 2009, one of the 13 courts of appeals had a majority of Democratic appointees; today, six do, although some of the majorities are slim, and the balance of Republican and Democratic appointees is a weak predictor at best of decisional tendencies," Wheeler writes.

Obama's district court confirmations are a different story, Wheeler points out. As it stands now, Obama's 125 confirmations, an 80 percent rate, are well below either of the final figures for the first terms of Clinton (87 percent) or Bush (97 percent), and slightly below those of their second terms.

The district court picture could change with confirmations after the current summer recess, but any more circuit court confirmations are unlikely to happen.

Comments

[Avon]

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."

[Rick]

"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..

[Adamakis]

Rick,
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!

[Rick]

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..