Senate Deal Allows Confirmation Votes for 14 Judicial Nominees

After months of backlog and partisan recrimination, Senate leaders reached an agreement to move forward with judicial nominees this afternoon that assures 12 federal district court judge picks and two circuit court selections will get confirmation votes before the summer.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kent.) struck the deal amid a threat from some Republicans to filibuster judges as a response to President Barack Obama’s controversial recess appointments to consumer and labor agencies two months ago.

The agreement came just hours before Reid planned to begin a series of procedural votes that would have forced confirmation votes through the Senate floor, but might have taken weeks to accomplish.

The agreement means the Senate will act on two judicial nominees per week before May 7, which is better than the one-per-week average so far this session, a Senate Democratic aide said. Reid feels the agreement is a step in the right direction but that it is not a remedy to the crisis facing the courts that have judicial vacancies, the aide said.

The two appellate judges in the deal are Stephanie Thacker in the 4th Circuit and Jacqueline Nguyen in the 9th Circuit. The 12 district court judges include Gina Marie Groh of the Northern District of West Virginia; David Nuffer of Utah; Michael Walter Fitzgerald of the Central District of California; Ronnie Abrams of the Southern District of New York; Rudolph Contreras of the District of Columbia; Miranda Du of Nevada; Susie Morgan of the Eastern District of Louisiana; Gregg Costa of the Southern District of Texas; David Guaderrama of the Western District of Texas; Brian Wimes of the Western District of Missouri; Kristine Baker of the Eastern District of Arkansas; and John Lee of the Northern District of Illinois.

After Obama angered Senate Republicans with his recess appointments – during a two-day break in January that even some Constitutional lawyers have concluded doesn't qualify as as actual recess – there were hints that GOP retaliation could come at the expense of Obama’s judicial nominees.

That came to fruition on Capitol Hill this week, when Republicans announced they would bog down the confirmation process for 17 relatively uncontroversial district court nominees — even vote against judges they might have otherwise supported — to highlight what they see as Obama’s unconstitutional sidestep of Senate oversight.

The White House and other Democrats erupted. Reid called it a “political show of obstructionism,” and threatened unusual measures, including votes to cut off debate on the nominees, to force a series of confirmation votes.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said this week that Republicans are even opposing the nominees they support, and that Americans seeking justice in their courts should not be forced to wait any longer. “I understand and share the Majority Leader’s frustration,” he said. “He has been unable to obtain the usual cooperation from the minority to schedule debates and votes on these widely supported, consensus nominees,” he said in a statement.

Republicans like Sen. Chuck Grassley called Reid's effort a political stunt, saying Americans want the Senate to tackle problems like gas prices, jobs and the economy, not “spending time on meaningless procedural votes.”

But the strategy also caused a rift within the Senate Republican caucus.

The fight over judicial nominees “is exactly what makes Americans sick of what we’re doing,” said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) during a committee hearing this month. “I don’t think we ought to hold up judges, that’s my personal opinion. A lot of my caucus doesn’t agree with that. I think we need to build bridges instead of burn them.”

The most outspoken critic of Obama’s recess appointments — which included Richard Cordray of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three members of the National Labor Relations Board — was Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah). He said this week that he has the moral high ground and will oppose all nominees, “until such action is taken to ensure that the Senate’s constitutional right to advise and consent to nominees is properly respected.”

Lee did not immediately issue a statement regarding today’s agreement.

White House Chief Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler told reporters in a conference call Tuesday that the need for judges is a crisis, because dockets are extra crowded, and there are unnecessary delays for people and businesses waiting for their day in court.

There are a total 22 judicial nominees awaiting action on the Senate floor — meaning that eight of the judges, including five district nominees and three appellate nominees, didn't make Reid and McConnell's cut. It's unclear if they could be part of any future agreement.

The circuit judicial nominees who did not make the deal include Andrew Hurwitz of the 9th Circuit; Paul Watford, also of the 9th Circuit; and Patty Shwartz of the 3rd Circuit.

The district court nominees who didn't make the list included John Tharp of the Northern District of Illinois; George Russell III of Maryland; Mary Lewis of South Carolina; Jeffrey Helmick from the Northern District of Ohio; and Timothy Hillman of Massachusetts.

Comments

[Kenthus]

Next we'll be hearing that the President's low apapovrl rating is "biased" and "not scientific". Activist judges extremist socialist agenda a vast left-wing media conspiracy just listen to yourself. While you're at it, consider wiping that foam away from your mouth.Yes, Blair and Howard were re-elected, but neither of them are pushing the hard right agenda in their own countries that Bush is pushing in the US. have acknowledged error in ways that Bush will never be able to bring himself to do. Both Howard and Blair are eloquent, well-spoken, and diplomatic. So let's not equivocate them with Bush or use their re-elections as evidence of a world-wide movement to the right. That's disingenuous if not intentionally decietful.The truth of the matter is that present day politics in America is not moving in the ideological direction as their counterpart western democracies. This soap-box preaching about "freedom" is belied by America's support for some of the worst human rights violators out their, and America's unwillingness to push for reform in some of those countries because "they may be bastards, but they're America's bastards". Most other countries out there recognize this and can see the pattern. America supported Osama's ilk in Afghanistan when it was convenient to do so and it came back to bite them. America supported Saddam when it was convenient and it came back to bite them. Under George II's rule, he's been off grandiosely slaying a toothless tiger while Osama's still at large, North Korea and Iran are reaching nuclear brinkmanship, and America still has gaping security problems.Meanwhile at home, Bush has been pandering to the far right who wants (like Bolton) to see the UN disappear, and who wants (like Scalia) to undo jurisprudence like the right to privacy, the right to make one's own medical decisions, and the right not to have governmental endorsement of religion. The type of theocratic reforms that the Bush administration is aiming for are hardly representative of freedom or democracy, and certainly don't represent the way the rest of the developed world is moving. Freedom is winning, but isn't because of Bush.UN reform isn't going to occur by brute force. The General Assembly and Security Council are somewhat democratically controlled bodies and changes require support from others. Convincing others to support reform isn't going to come about by suggesting that the UN doesn't exist, or by forcing resolutions that pin the UN into a corner (see Bolton's previous comments regarding the UN for details), slamming doors, or chasing secretaries up and down hallways. Screaming, yelling, chest-thumping those things might go over well on Monday Night RAW, but (as evidenced by the UN's reaction to Bush's "with us or without us" rhetoric) it won't fly at the UN. What is the likelihood that Bolton will be able to lead others to support his efforts when his past comments have reflected a desire to see the UN gone, international law ignored, and America's treaty obligations not worth the paper they were written on? Having Bolton as an Ambassador is only likely to further marginalize America's influence on the UN. When that happens, everyone loses. The problem is that the "right" is so caught up in the "Bush can and never has done any wrong" that they'd rather toe the party line than admit to the obvious... Bolton is a bad choice, and one indicative of one who proclaimed to be a "uniter, not a divider".The founding father's of America understood the concept of "tyranny of the majority" and the problems associated with having power consolidated with one body. The right's present efforts to effect exactly that might represent democracy in the literal sense of the term, but certainly not in the Plato/Madison/de Tocqueville meaning.Of course, based on your above rants ("Daschlecrats!??!, I don't hold any misconceptions about being able to convince you. I can only pray that there are Americans out there that are a bit more level-headed. Bush's current apapovrl rating provides some hope.

[Alex]

Undocumented Immigrants are not not contributing to a "crowded" problem for the courts. They are crowded because there are not enough judges in our system.

[Howard Norris]

Just what we need, more anti-gun nuts on the bench: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2012/03/09/federal-district-court-maryland-rules-states-gun-control-law-unconstitutional/

[Westbayguy]

Wait a sec- the republicans are upset that Obama made recess appointments, but those appointments were made only after the republicans sat on judicial and other appointments for a long time. Advise and consent means you VOTE - up or down- not play political football with the nominees. THe only ones hurt are the american public AND the federal judges still serving- at ridiculously low pay for waht they do (compared to what they could make in the marketplace).

Nominations are just hat- and Congress has an obligation to act on them. Shame on the republicans.

[JS]

Looks to me like they're going in chronological order on the nominations. The circuit judges who didn't make the cut all seem to have been reported out by Judiciary Committee since February. I'd expect to see progress on most of them in a month or so.

[exquisitor]

The reason the dockets are 'crowded' is because nearly 1/2 of all federal cases are about illegal aliens. That seems more significant than the number of judges we have.