Obama's Judges Blocked At Historic Rate

As the first congressional session of Obama's presidency draws to a close, what began as a slow process of confirmation has ballooned into a full-blown judicial crisis. The Senate has overseen the slowest pace of judicial staffing in at least a generation, with a paltry 39.8 percent of Obama's judges having been confirmed, according to numbers compiled by Senate Democrats. Of the 103 district and circuit court nominees, only 41 have been confirmed.

By this time in George W. Bush's presidency, the Senate had confirmed 76 percent of his nominees. President Clinton was working at a rate of 89 percent at this point in his tenure.

While the confirmation process is slower now (a function of a packed legislative calendar and Republican obstruction), Obama's nominating pace also lags behind his predecessors. His 103 total nominations compare to 142 by Clinton and 130 by Bush at this same juncture.

Ronald Reagan had twice as many judges confirmed by this time in his presidency, with his 87 confirmations dwarfing Obama's total. George H.W. Bush had moved 70 judges through the Democratic-controlled Senate.

With fewer judges on staff, those left must take on that many more cases. For example, each judge on a Denver panel two robes short is responsible for 593 instead of 430 cases. The slow pace of confirmations has led to a federal judiciary with nearly one in eight seats empty, as a foreclosure crisis fueled by rampant fraud floods the courts.

Comments

[FiredUpRTG]

03:28 PM on 01/24/2011

The Repubs obstructions are causing backlog crises in state courts? Well, that's okay, as long as they prevent this particular president from getting what he wants. The backlogs haven't hurt their families, so they don't care.

[cave mann35]

02:59 PM on 01/24/2011

So less than 40% of the judges being nominated have been confirmed. Isn't this just par for the course. The GOP has obstructed everything from healthcare to having a new arms treaty with Russia, so why is it surprising that they obstruct justice as well? While this may be a GOP tactic, I just wish Obama would grow a pair and install all of them on a year by year basis if necessary, instead of playing this game. The senate is supposed to advise on judicial nominations and in case you haven't been paying attention, it's the president's job to appoint them and if they are not being called for an up or down vote, then recess appoint all of them! What are you waiting for? You can't get good qualified SCOTUS material that apply the law and not advocate the conservative position if they don't serve time on the appellate bench (almost a few two years for CJ Roberts).

[calmly]

07:29 AM on 01/24/2011

Another naive question from Calmly: :)
I hope that by asking these questions, other people who are too embarrassed to ask will benefit. At least that's what I keep tellin' myself.

Can't he appoint these people while Congress is in recess? Is there a reason he doesn't? I understand the desire for non-partisanship, but he's tried that for two years without getting anywhere. Some appointments have been blocked by only one or two people, right? At least appoint them straightaway!

[escribacat]

11:31 AM on 01/24/2011

So this is Obama's fault?

[calmly]

01:29 PM on 01/24/2011

Of course it's not Obama's fault... I think he's wonderful. I just think he's too nice to those cretins. He should realize the Repubs aren't going to ever play fair, so he should just continue with his plans and not worry about what they think.

[joadar]

01:53 PM on 01/24/2011

The president appoints and they are confirmed by the senate. So no, he can't do it behind their back.

[calmly]

11:42 PM on 01/24/2011

Well that's a bummer.

[Madagain]

05:00 AM on 01/24/2011

President Obama must realize that he is extending his hand to a GOP that works against him wholeheartedly. They only will have things their way, and nothing more. Seeking non partizianship is admireable, but at this stage over two years into his presidency, there is only one party even attempting to be nonpartizian, the Democrats. The left must fight back, or be trampled by the greedy. I surely hope he has some plan other than this, for the next two years.

[forestnfama]

04:08 AM on 01/24/2011

The truth is we have the government we deserve........When people leave it to others to sort out the mess then usually it doesn't get sorted out. Face it...... Americans have lost their heart and no longer are holding our politicians and media to account. We have let rich billionaires fund a false grass movement *tea party" which is being played as some kind of grass roots revolution with Fox News (not), screaming hate and vitriol. Americans of yesteryear would be appalled at how ignorant present day Americans have become. A Republican from the 60s would not recognize what is presently masquerading as Republicans and that goes as well for Democrats.

[Andrew W Douglass]

02:27 AM on 01/24/2011

I can say from experience that shorthanding the judiciary really does cause a lot of harm. The system moves slowly enough as it is. The nominees themselves suffer, too, and these are lifetime jobs that really call out for quality people. The delays are unprincipled and indefensible.

[innerpuppie]

11:58 PM on 01/23/2011

"Obama's Judges Blocked At Historic Rate"

He doesn't care. If he did he would do something about it when Congress wasn't in session. He just doesn't care AND he doesn't want to upset his buddies the Republicans.

[escribacat]

11:32 AM on 01/24/2011

Gawd. Wah wah wah. Daddy doesn't care.

[Articulator]

10:36 PM on 01/23/2011

I remember all the crying and moaning from the right wing propaganda machine in the likes of Rush and the clowns at Faux over George's nominations not getting appointed fast enough. So where is their concern now? They literally cried over and over for weeks. So what's up? No concern now? How come?

[rubicon101]

08:33 PM on 01/23/2011

this is one of the things that slips under the radar but this story should be exposed by the media and other obstruction politics by the Republican party. Funny how the main stream media can focus on a "non story" for days on end but when it comes to a clear intention by the opposing party for politics alone..The media runs away and starts talking about something like the weather or worse yet , Sarah Palin!
Why has our most trusted people in the main stream media failed us americans that want to truth to be told, corruption to be exposed and misbehavior by our elected officials be related to all? Not since Watergate has the media done it's job in my estimation. They have certainly sat on their hands while looking for their fifteen minute of fame. It would be nice to have a media that could be trusted to give it to us straight and tell us what is truly happening in the country and the world. Not some fabricated BS about an ex governor. I want the media to expose the republicans for who they are, hold them accountable and not try to sell us a bunch of mularky.

[behumane]

09:46 PM on 01/23/2011

Totally agree. This should be frontpage news. Only a select few find out what's going on...too few to have a voice or make a difference. These actions would not be possible if more people objected to them. I'm astounded at how a flash mob can almost bring a mall down when they gather to sing Christmas carols, yet there is no flash mob that gathers to protest republican actions.

[boomcat44]

08:16 PM on 01/23/2011

Democrats in the House and Senate, need to start being a little more insistent on bringing these Judges up for a vote.
There's no reason they can't get out in public and start throwing a little light on this issue.

[AdamWest1313]

09:02 PM on 01/23/2011

It's because Dem's are spineless. But I'd still prefer spineless over soulless.

[sjcarl]

08:14 PM on 01/23/2011

Remember when the GOP insisted on an up or down vote for Bush nominees and were willing to resort to the "nuclear option" to get what they wanted? Hypocrites.

[hpillp]

07:53 PM on 01/23/2011

The dems control the senate. So what's the problem?

[AdamWest1313]

09:00 PM on 01/23/2011

You know full well that that means nothing. ONE person can block a lot, regardless of the majority.

[sushi27]

07:06 PM on 01/23/2011

What happened to fixing the Senate?