Snappy newsletters. Simple Facebook sharing. Spirited comments. Sweet features are waiting… GET THEM NOW!

Partisan Tiff Leaves Federal Courts Without Judges

GOP still blocking nominees, Obama slow to nominate

By Kevin Spak,  Newser Staff

Posted Aug 31, 2010 7:28 AM CDT

(Newser) – The partisan standoff on judges is starting threaten our ability to administer justice. Nearly 1 in 8 federal judgeships are currently vacant, the LA Times reports, as Senate Republicans block many of President Obama’s nominees. Just 47% of Obama’s nominees have been approved—the lowest rate in 30 years by a wide margin (84% for Clinton, 79% for W, 93% for Reagan). “Their objections often are unrelated to a specific nominee,” complains an assistant attorney general, who warns that at this rate, half of the nation's 876 posts could be vacant within a decade.

Republicans admit they’re out for payback for Democrats’ efforts to scuttle some George W. Bush nominees. But they also blame Obama for not nominating enough judges. There are just 39 pending nominees to fill 102 open seats. “Republicans can’t block something that’s not there,” says a Mitch McConnell spokesman. Part of the reason Obama’s been slow to nominate, legal experts say, is because he runs his nominees by the American Bar Association—a tradition Bush eschewed.

An empty courtroom is seen in this file photo.
An empty courtroom is seen in this file photo.   (Shutterstock)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
My TakeCLICK BELOW TO VOTE
3%
14%
41%
10%
7%
24%
To report an error on this story, notify our editors.
COMMENTS
Showing 3 of 3 comments
Toon
Aug 31, 2010 9:17 AM CDT
So because Dems in Congress rejected 2 out of every 10 Bush's nominations the Reps are going to reject 5 out of every 10 Obama nominations. And here the kicker Bush tended to nominate people from schools with poor reputations because they agreed with his politics, he nominated poor judges who were good conservatives. Obama is nominating people who are considered good judges by a group of legal professionals. For all you who say there is no difference between the parties here an example of clear difference. Republicans nominate judges who may or may not be good judges but who are loyal first to their party. They assume the other party is doing the same and reject a large number of Democrat nominated judges. Democrats nominate judges who they take the time to determine are good judges. They approve judges who they think will be good judges. The parties act differently and in the first case it fills the benches with party hacks and in the second it leaves the benches open and ready for the other party to fill with party hacks next time they take the presidency.
bewilderbeast
Aug 31, 2010 8:08 AM CDT
"Partisan tiff" memorise that. Far, FAR more dangerous to America and its future than "Al Qaeda".
Cat-Lover
Aug 31, 2010 7:46 AM CDT
To play on the sentence that running the nominees by the ABA was "...a tradition Bush eschewed," it should have read, "...a tradition Bush screwed."
 

NEWS FROM OUR PARTNERS
Other Sites We Like:   24/7 Wall St.   |   BuzzFeed   |   Cracked   |   Timelines   |   POPSUGAR Tech   |   Business Insider   |   HuffPost Entertainment   |   NewsOne