• 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

« Bank of America Challenges FDIC 'No Value' Decision | Main | Former Senior DOJ Lawyer Heads to Akin »

July 24, 2013



I think it's ridiculous to cite the Marbury Court as precedent for judicial restraint. At the time, the most common understanding of the Constitution was that it gave the Supreme Court no such supreme power to void acts of the other Branches. The Marbury v. Madison decision was downright radical ... but I think we all agree it was a necessary and appropriate decision to establish the intent and efficacy of the Constitution.

I think it's ridiculous to say that being either right or left of center should disqualify a federal appeals judge. If that were so, we wouldn't need appeals courts; we'd just rubber-stamp the middle of the road every time. America would wither on the vine.

I think it's ridiculous to say that if the Senate sees enough graffiti then "the handwriting is on the wall." Rumors and vandalism should never become self-fulfilling as the last word on how America will be governed by any of its three branches, and the Judiciary should be most independent of all.

I really do not get how the commenters to the foregoing effect can be serious. Yes, I get how they can be sincere; but how they can seriously expect to convince anyone outside their choir? To me, that looks delusional.


"her fate in this process will be the same as Caitlin Halligan".

Well if the Democrats accept a filibuster of Nina Pillard then they are guilty of political malpractice...Enough of legislation and nominations have been lost to excessive Republican obstruction since 1/20/09...Furthermore it would show they don't fight for their nominees, unlike the Republicans, who fought hard to get 2 extremists on the DC Circuit in Janice Rogers Brown and Brett Kavanaugh..

Getting the Executvie nominees thru last week was good, but unless they get the 3 pending DC Circuit nominees confirmed, then its like winning the first 3 quarters of an NFL game, but being outscored in the fourth by a large margin and subsequently losing the game..


The writing is on the wall for this nominee! I have a feeling that her fate in this process will be the same as Caitlin Halligan.

Furthermore, I personally would love to see President Obama nominate a well-qualified woman of color to the DC Circuit.


I find it incredibly unseemly that federal appellate court judges are anonymously colluding with Senator Grassley to prevent appointment of President Obama's nominees.


No judge left of center should ever be considered for any appellate judgeship, much less for associate justice on the Supreme Court.

When the Marbury Court declared its power of judicial review, it was careful to recognize the limitations of that review as being bounded by the constraints of the Constitution in determining the scope of federal laws.

Since, the Court has taken upon itself to ignore original meaning and intent of the Constitution, instead replacing purposely stringent constitutional delegations of power with its own "enlightened" expansion of same.

That is not the role of the Court, enumerated OR implied.

For this reason, anyone who espouses the politically progressive philosophy (which at its core rejects the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers and supremacy of the rights of the individual) must be denied access to the most influential seats of judicial power.


But Rick, that still begs the question of whether the DC Circuit needs them or not. Some Presidents get to appoint a number of SCOTUS justices, simply because of vacancies, while other Presidents, serving the same amount of time, get to appoint fewer or even none. For SCOTUS the number is fixed at nine. For this circuit, it depends on need. But in both cases it has nothing to do with "privileges."


You've got to hand it to Senator Grassley. Now he is coming forward with "anonymous" statements from D.C. Court judges, in addition to his already misleading use of statistics, to prove the D.C. Circuit is under-worked. Where was he with this information when the Senate approved four G.W. Bush nominees only a few years ago, we sure could have used it then!

I watched part of the hearing via webcast, and I found Ms. Pillard's answers to be thorough and well-thought out. I'm sure some of her writings will continue to draw the ire of the right. I would like to think she might have a shot at a confirmation vote sometime next year, but we shall see.


Ms Pillard is highly qualified, she could probably be a SCOTUS nominee..

George W Bush had 4 confirmations to the DC Circuit, President Obama thus far only has one....When the score is 4-4, then we can have the discussion about the DC Circuit caseload/workload..

President Obama has won re-election and with that comes the same privileges that the president before him had, and that is nominating individuals to high profile courts...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad