Democratic senators are slow-waking President Obama's judicial nominations, something that our constitutional law professor chief executive is said to be frustrated about. The Washington Independent's chronicler of the conservative movement, David Weigel, has a theory: the White House itself is to blame because it's failed the zone with nominees and hasn't gone to the mat for all of them. Republicans, he notes, were quite aggressive in squeezing their nominees through a tighter Senate vise.
Why would this be so? Why would Democrats be more tepid than Republicans? The root, I think, is in the asymmetric
importance that the two parties ascribe to this issue. For many reasons, GOP movement conservatives care deeply about judicial
nominations -- advancing them when they are in control, and blocking
them when they are not. But for Democratic movement liberals, they are
less central.
The GOP's critical interest group, the Christian right, puts judicial
nominations -- pro and con -- at the top of their list. The Democrats'
most critical interest group, organized labor, wouldn't rate it in the
top 20 of things it cares about.
Put another way, any Republican running for president in 2012 will be
seeking the support of the three or four key leaders of the
conservative judicial selection/opposition movement. But I doubt that
the Democrats who ran in 2008 spent 10 seconds seeking out Nan Aron's endorsement, as
influential and respected as she may be. There are exceptions, of
course, such as when the left rose up to fight Robert Bork or Clarence
Thomas. Daily, though, the 10 most important
conservative activists put judicial selection nearer to the top of the
list of things they care about than do the 10 most important liberal
activists.
Similarly, because the Democratic Party has a much broader
coalition than the Republican Party, there is an asymmetric comfort
with social issue debates. Judicial confirmation fights -- and the
selection of controversial nominees -- inevitably come down to battles
over social issues. And the GOP senators are more comfortable doing
battle over social issues than are Democratic senators. The GOP is
fine defending really conservative nominees like Roberts and Alito (and
their court of appeals parallels) with right-wing records on civil
rights, gay rights, and abortion. But the Democratic senators quake in
their boots to defend David Hamilton's legislative prayer case, or
Sonia Sotomayor's firefighters decision. Democrats are happy to
defend liberal views on economic matters -- hence, 57 or 58 or 59 are
ready to vote for EFCA -- but judicial nominations are not about
economic matters. And Democrats are still spooked by cultural issues.
Marc - "...GOP movement conservatives care deeply about judicial nominations -- advancing them when they are in control, and blocking them when they are not..."
Come on Marc, man up and admit the Democrats launched the modern 60 vote rule on judicial approval.
"Democrats invented the filibuster of judicial nominees in 2003"
Oh, and by the way, there are 60 Democrats in the Senate today. President Obama does not need a single Republican to pack the courts with any judge that he chooses .
By way of example: Judge Butler
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574525741364961888.html
Maybe President Obama just cannot find enough Justices that the voters dislike.
This would be fine to say, except that it's false. The reason Abe Fortas never became Chief Justice was a threat of filibuster by Republicans who were pissed off that the Warren Court thought the Bill of Rights had substantive content. If you want to split hairs about when a threat of filibuster actually becomes a filibuster, go ahead.
Whatever happened to up and down votes? Oh, right, it's different, now. Guess there's always the nuclear option. You remember the nuclear option? Right?
This would be fine to say, except that it's false. The reason Abe Fortas never became Chief Justice was a threat of filibuster by Republicans who were pissed off that the Warren Court thought the Bill of Rights had substantive film izle content. If you want to split hairs about when a threat of filibuster actually becomes a filibuster, go ahead.
I would think that the slowdown from the White House on judicial nominees to gays in the military to just about any other big policy proposal right now has everything to do with the health care bill going through Congress. While the GOP is committed to denying everything Obama wants, creating legislative distractions from the grand prize would only help to further health care reform's demise. Once health care passes Congress, Obama has some amped up political capital to push through many other issues that have been viewed as "held up", "ignored" or "forgotten". If I were Obama, and my number one priority was in the heat of the legislative process, I wouldn't start placing other things further down the pipe, knowing full well it would dilute my top priority.
While I agree that the White House has slowed down with Health Care, the problem is not that Obama has slowed his judicial nominations, it is that he has never moved quickly. If you take Marc's advice and look at data from Nan Aron's Alliance for Justice you can see that even in September the pace of Obama's judicial nominees was way behind that of Bush. http://www.afj.org/check-the-facts/nominees/nomspacefactsheet91509.pdf
Oh, and by the way, there are 60 Democrats in the Senate today. President Obama does not need a single Republican to pack the courts with any judge that he chooses film izle content. If you want to split hairs about when a threat of filibuster actually becomes a filibuster, go ahead