• 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

« Publisher Lines Up Support In Public Corruption Case | Main | Random House Loses Bid to Subpoena CIA in Privacy Invasion Case »

July 15, 2011


Jan Kleeman

Your article doesn't reflect what the Judicature article found so wanting in the Obama administration's judicial nomination process and the nominations themselves. Although it describes certain communications gaps, the hard figures illustrate the relatively great strides in appointing more women and so-called minorities to diversify the bench, and in much greater numbers than Obama's predecessor (not at all surprising) and President Clinton (somewhat surprising)? As more than one person who has posted a comment has noted, the judicial nomination process, like virtually every other act Congress is charged with performing, has been paralyzed by partisanship and political polarization, and judicial nominations have, since virtually our country's beginnings, often been flashpoints. I think either a clearer explanation of the Judicature article or reading the original article might clarify what seems to be somewhat quick and unclear reporting.


If I were considered for a nomination I would respectfully decline because the process of nomination, background investigation and confirmation is so protracted and intrusive that it would drive me, as a small firm lawyer in private practice, into bankruptcy before confirmation.


Insular and lacking energy would be a quantum leap for these clowns!!


Not talking to Justice department lawyers? That's a bad thing?


"Ever since the Judge Bork nomination the judicial process has become polarizing"..

Correction...Ever since the Abe Fortas nomination in 1968 (LBJ tried to appoint him Chief Justice) judicial nominations became polorizing...

Things are getting worse with what's happening to President Obama's nominees, especially at the Court of Appeals level...Consider:

Goodwin Liu - Filibustered

Edward DuMont - Republicans won't even permit SJC hearing...

Stephen Six - being denied SJC vote...

Caitlin Halligan - cleared the SJC in March and still hasn't received full senate vote...

Victoria Nourse - nomination hangs in limbo for no apparent reason...

Legal Advice

There is a constant attempt at character assination on both sides of the aisle for well qualified and competent nominations. Ever since the Judge Bork nomination the judicial process has become polarizing. It is unfortunate that a "litmus test" is applied for judicial nominations rather then looking at the willingness of potential nominees to simply follow the rule of law.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad