National Review still lying about judicial appointments
Kickin' Ass & Takin' Names
that has been posted on the Ethics and Public Policy Center website in
which he hails the "appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and
Justice Samuel Alito as two of [President Bush's] best decisions"
before launching into the by-now standard Republican complaint that
Bush's judicial nominees faced unprecedented obstruction at the hands
of Democrats:
President Bush's record on lower-court appointments is much more
mixed. Let's begin with the numbers. Bush appointed 62 judges to the
federal courts of appeals. That's even fewer than the 65 that
President Clinton appointed, amidst bitter Democratic complaints and
media buzz about a confirmation slowdown by Senate Republicans. Bush's
total also includes three of Clinton's unsuccessful nominees whom Bush
renominated -- two in 2001 in unrequited gestures of goodwill, and one
in 2008 as part of a Sixth Circuit deal. The numbers for the federal
district courts are even worse: 261 Bush appointees versus 305 Clinton
appointees. The Bush numbers are all the more disappointing as
Republicans controlled the Senate for more than half of the Bush
presidency, whereas Clinton enjoyed Democratic control for only two of
his eight years.
Back in October, I tried to debunk this sort of misleading comparison
by noting that one cannot accurately compare confirmation rates by
simply citing the total number of judges confirmed - rather, one must
compare the overall percentage of nominees confirmed to get an
accurate comparison; and by that measure, President Bush's nominees
fared better than did President Clinton's. But since this claims
keeps popping up, I suppose I should re-post my last explanation ... and
considering that there do not appear to have not been any new
nominations or confirmations since I first wrote it, the numbers are
still accurate:
According to CRS, President Reagan put forth a total of 423 District
and Circuit Court nominees and saw 375 of them confirmed; a
confirmation rate of 88%. President Clinton, by contrast, put forth
more nominees and had fewer confirmed: 372 of 488, for a confirmation
rate of 76%.
In comparison, according to the White House's own figures cited in the
Washington Post article above, "324 of 376 federal court nominees have
been confirmed during Bush's tenure." That gives him a confirmation
rate of 86%, well above President Clinton's confirmation rate. In
fact, for Bush to lower his confirmation rate to match that of
Clinton, he'd have to nominate another 50 or so judges before he
leaves office in a few months.
Despite relying on the use of raw confirmation totals instead of the
more accurate confirmation rates, Whelan deserves credit for using
correct figures and overall having a solid understanding of the issue.
Sadly, the same cannot be said for the Texas Eagle Forum which, as the
Texas Freedom Network notes, has jumped into the fray regarding the
selection of the next Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives by
likening those who are not supporting their preferred right-wing
choice to the senators who "stifled President Bush's court
appointments":
Remember how the "gang of 12″ US Senators stifled President Bush's
court appointments? This type of renegade politics is now being
practiced by a "gang of 11″ TX State Representatives concerning the
election of the next Speaker of the House.
Do you remember the "Gang of 12"? I sure don't ... though I do remember
the "Gang of 14." It seems to me that if you are trying to rile up
your supporters by likening current events to one of the Right's
bitterest memories, the least you can do is be sure to get the name
right.