Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

Obama turns tables on GOP: no compromise on judicial nominations (+video)

Obama slams Republicans for 'unprecedented' obstruction of his judicial nominees, and Sen. Harry Reid vows no compromise on a student loan deal, as Democrats take a page from the Republican playbook.

(Page 2 of 2)

Obama’s 80.5 percent approval rate for all his first-term judicial nominees to district and circuit courts is better than the approval rate for George H.W. Bush’s nominees (77.4 percent) and not far behind the rate for Mr. Clinton’s nominees (83.7 percent), according to the Congressional Research Service

Skip to next paragraph

Furthermore, Republicans say the president’s volume of nominations has not kept pace with the total number of slots open. According to CRS, Obama is the only president of the past five to see the number of district court vacancies increase during his first term (if newly created judgeships are taken out of the equation).

On the other hand, Obama’s judicial nominees waited an average of 228 days between their nomination and confirmation through May of this year, according to an analysis by the American Constitutional Society. That’s about 50 percent longer than George W. Bush’s nominees waited.

Obama cites an even starker figure, saying that his nominees have waited three times as long as George W. Bush’s nominees. But the administration's calculation reflects the time between when nominees were approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and when they were approved on the floor of the Senate.

Thus, Republicans point out it's the Senate’s Democratic leadership that controls when nominees will land on the body’s legislative calendar – thus, they say, the problem, in fact, is poor management by the Senate Democrats. Democrats counter that Republican holds on particular justices hold them back while perpetual filibuster threats snarl all Senate business, making scheduling votes on judges a difficult task and squeezing the amount of time available to do any work to a minimum.

What’s at stake with all the congressional hardball?

Senate Democrats frustrated by the delay on judges have threatened to revisit a months-old compromise on Senate rules. They say they could put in play the “nuclear option” – changing the Senate’s rules with only a bare majority vote to essentially end the power of the filibuster.

The results of such a move would mean major upheaval in the tradition-bound US Senate. Had the Senate’s Republican leadership given in to the nuclear urge in 2005, “the upshot would have been that the Senate would have ceased to be the place it had always been – a place in which collegiality was the order of the day and each senator had as much power as any other to dictate the flow of events within the institution,” wrote law professors Michael Gerhardt and Richard Painter in a 2011 analysis for the American Constitution Society.

Then, there’s the question of whether the White House and Congress can, in fact, come to an accord on student loan rates before they expire.

And finally the president’s tone may risk the fragile relationship the he has attempted to build with some Republican senators.

“Why didn’t he just send us three names” without the lecture? wondered Senator Alexander, who worked in a bipartisan group to head off a rules showdown earlier this year. “It’s unpresidential. It’s embarrassing for me.... He’s losing any capacity he’s going to have for Republican support for important issues by these kind of tactics. And that includes me.”


  • Weekly review of global news and ideas
  • Balanced, insightful and trustworthy
  • Subscribe in print or digital

Special Offer

Become a fan! Follow us! Google+ YouTube See our feeds!