In-justice

[Political Waves]

Back in 2007 and 8, we saw a flurry of activity within the Dub's administration, salting away lifelong conservatives in government positions -- and it should be glaringly obvious that they've done their utmost to effectively obstruct Dem policy whenever they could (including some department heads that were/are simply defiant, refusing to do as directed and marking time to be replaced. That's REAL obstruction, kids!)

One of the places Georgie did his level best (finally listening to advice from Poppy) was in loading the judiciary -- and if you remember, although the Dems bucked and kicked, Roberts and Alito got their pass, as was expected from a civil Congress. Ahhhh! Those were the days!

Well, civil no more, of course -- and it's taken all five of these years to come back to square zero in terms of the balance of political appointees to the judiciary. But ... and this is One Good Thing out of a gazillion worrisome ones ... we've finally hit that mark. I'm putting that article last, a Think Progress piece appears first, as that one defines our issues and indicates our challenges of the day, as well as offering an activist opportunity.

After a slight lull in the fireworks, the filibuster is back and obviously partisan, even breaking a record for obstruction set during the post-Civil War Reconstruction, and now wee Lindsey Graham -- no doubt looking to make points with the South Carolina Baggers who disapprove his occasional realism, aligning himself with old pal and sometime-maverick John McCain -- vows to block all nominee's unless he gets more details about Benghazi. That's not just judges and the like -- that's Homeland Security and Federal Reserve candidates as well.

This two man chorus of would-be warriors keep trying to stop the growing peace movement by keeping Terror going, but the public is about exhausted with the whole process and even the Pubs are tired of military drums. Of the deluded, you gotta wonder which of these two most often plays Sancho Panza, but I think it's likely the wee one. John is, after all, the "war hero."

Sign of the times -- hopefully to be reflected in history books as something we finally overcame -- when one little twit can stop government to chase phantoms and curry favor with radicals.

Here are three articles, worth a look to define our problem with judiciary. In terms of good news, I guess the fact that Obama still has a few years to nominate (and could-be Hillary after that.) The nation is moving left even as the right pulls its head around to keep looking back.

This post is both good news and bad -- but at least there IS movement and that works for me!

Jude


Bush is Gone, But His Judges Are Here to Stay

Filibuster Wars Return
CAP Action War Room, ThinkProgress
on November 1, 2013
http://thinkprogress.org/progress-report/courts-matter/

Following a brief detente over executive branch nominations over the past few months, Republicans yesterday went back to their same old obstructionist ways.

First, Republicans used the filibuster to block an up-or-down vote on Rep. Mel Watt, who has been nominated to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency, an important agency that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This is the first time since the Reconstruction Era that a sitting Member of Congress has been denied confirmation. Watt is also the first African-American FHFA nominee.

Republicans then filibustered the nomination of Patricia Millett for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, despite her sterling credentials as one of the most well-respected members of the Supreme Court bar, previous experience in both Democratic and Republican administrations, and the support of conservative legal luminaries like Ken Starr and Ted Olson.

The D.C. Circuit is second only to the Supreme Court in importance. It hears cases involving key national security issues and federal regulations like environmental and labor rules. During the Bush administration, all 11 seats on the court were happily filled by Republicans. But now that three vacancies have opened up, they are refusing to allow votes on President Obama’s nominees.

It’s no secret why — conservatives currently have a stranglehold on this important court and Republicans want to keep it that way. Of the eight current judges, four were appointed by Republicans and four were appointed by Democrats; however, five of six semi-retired senior judges who still hear cases were appointed by Republicans.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) indicated that Obama’s nominees will be voted on again and not-so-subtly threatened to change the filibuster rules if Republicans continue their blockade.

Why Courts Matter

The last 24 hours have provided important reminders about why the courts — and federal appeals courts in particular — matter.
In Texas, a three-judge panel of conservative Bush-appointed judges overruled an earlier ruling and reinstated Texas’ draconian new restrictions on abortion. The restrictions forced about one-third of Texas abortion clinics to close. Today.

And then this morning, D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown, one of Bush’s most radical appointees, issued a ruling against the Obamacare mandate that requires insurers to offer no-cost birth control.

Both of these vital cases will likely head to the Supreme Court, which also continues to be controlled by Republican-appointed justices, where they will face an uncertain fate.

BOTTOM LINE: The courts matter and it’s important that President Obama be allowed to exercise his constitutional duty to fill vacancies on the D.C. Circuit, other federal appeals courts, and district courts. Unless more progressive judges make it on to the bench, radical judges appointed by Bush and other Republicans will continue to try and drag the country backward and undermine hard won progressive victories.

Had enough? Click below to tell your senators that enough is enough and it’s time to allow a vote on the president’s nominees.
http://www2.americanprogress.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/

 

Lindsey Graham renews vows to block nominees
Holly Yeager, WaPo
November 3
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/11/03/lindsey-graham-renews-vows-to-block-nominees/

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) pressed the Obama administration Sunday to allow Congress to hear from American survivors of the September 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, and renewed his promise to block confirmation of all of President Obama’s nominees if it does not.

“A year later, Congress doesn’t know anything about it from those who lived through it,” Graham said of the attack during an appearance on Fox News Sunday.

Graham’s vow to block nominees threatens to delay the confirmation of Jeh Johnson as homeland security secretary and Janet L. Yellen as head of the Federal Reserve.

“I shouldn’t have to make these kinds of threats,” he said. “I’m hoping they will relent.”

Graham said he wants to hear “from the mouths of people who were on the ground” about the events leading up to the attack.

An explosive report on CBS’s “60 Minutes” last week has reignited attention to the attack. But the account provided by the British supervisor of local security guards protecting the U.S. diplomatic mission has been called into question.

“If he’s lying, I want to know that,” Graham said. ++


Obama tilts federal judiciary back toward Democrats
Nation's appeals and district courts, long dominated by Republican appointees, are evenly split as the GOP seeks to slow or block Obama's agenda.
Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
November 1, 2013
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/31/obama-judges-democrat-republican-senate/3286337/

Story Highlights

- It took nearly five years to overcome Republican edge
- But "senior" judges give GOP continued advantage
- Republicans block confirmation at nation's No. 2 court

WASHINGTON — The federal judiciary — long the province and priority of Republicans — is turning more Democratic.

The number of full-time federal judges named by Democratic presidents will draw even Friday with the number named by Republicans, following two retirements. The next of President Obama's nominees to replace a Republican-named judge will tilt the balance in Democrats' favor; that majority will grow for the remainder of his term.

The trend is particularly noteworthy at the nation's 13 appeals courts, 10 of which had a majority of Republican appointees by the end of George W. Bush's presidency. Although the Supreme Court remains 5-4 in Republicans' favor, judges named by Democratic presidents now dominate seven appeals courts, and two more are split down the middle.

"It is an important milestone," says Kathryn Ruemmler, the White House counsel. "It is a good indicator that the president is making his mark on the courts."

The federal courts — particularly the appeals courts — often set precedents in areas ranging from national security and economic regulation to abortion, immigration, voting rights, affirmative action, gun control and gay marriage.

"The impact that the president can have on the federal judiciary is perhaps the single-most important legacy issue for any president," says Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal advocacy group.

Both parties have fought wars over judicial nominees since 1987, when Democrats blocked Ronald Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. The arch-conservative Bork was replaced by the more moderate Anthony Kennedy, now the GOP appointee who most often sides with liberals.

So fierce is the battle for judicial control that, on Thursday, Senate Republicans blocked confirmation of Obama's top choice to fill a vacancy on the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia Circuit. That is the nation's second most powerful court, with vast jurisdiction over federal agencies and regulations.

The court has eight active judges, split among Democratic and Republican appointees, and three vacancies. There are six "senior" judges who usually serve part-time — five of them appointed by Republican presidents.

Obama, who had one nominee for that court blocked by Senate Republicans before winning confirmation of Sri Srinivasan in May, introduced three more nominees in June. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to confirm them, but Senate Republicans maintain the court doesn't need any more judges. On Thursday, they blocked action on Patricia Millett, 50, who has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any other woman.

"The reason they want to put more judges on the D.C. Circuit is not because it needs them, but because the president's best hope for advancing his agenda is through executive action, and that runs through the D.C. Circuit," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said.

Liberal activists have another explanation for GOP obstruction. "It's the farm team," says Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, of the court's historic role as stepping-stone to the Supreme Court. "Republicans have always fought holy wars over filling those seats."

Despite that setback, Democrats' steady progress on other appeals and district courts has not been denied. It's been a long time coming; Obama, preoccupied by two Supreme Court nominations in his first two years, got a slow start on filling lower court vacancies. Senate Republicans have been even slower to confirm his nominees.

Lining the federal bench with judges who enjoy lifetime tenure is one of the most significant perks of the presidency. Two-term presidents generally appoint nearly 40% of the 874 federal judges. George W. Bush's preference for ideological conservatives remade the judiciary in his image. Obama, with 208 confirmed judges so far, has preferred moderates.

Even as Democrats are poised to pull ahead, however, Republican nominees will maintain an outsize influence because of the number of judges over 65 who take senior status and continue to decide cases. While the number of active judges are tied at 390, there are 322 senior judges nominated by Republican presidents — more than half named by Reagan — compared with 233 Democrats.

For years, the problem for Democrats has been Republicans' dominance in presidential politics. GOP presidents have held the White House for 20 of the past 33 years and 28 of the past 45, dating to the Nixon administration.

"Their policy preferences should not be what's driving their decisions," says Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the conservative Judicial Crisis Network. "Unfortunately, we have a very politicized approach to the judiciary at this point, and that's detrimental."

Nationally, a few appeals court nominees have been blocked on both sides, and the pace of Senate confirmations has slowed with each new administration. About 10% of the nation's 179 appeals court and 677 district court judgeships remain vacant, a level not seen for two decades, according to the liberal Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

While squabbling with Senate Republicans over those delays, Obama has been able to remake the judiciary in another way. Forty-two percent of his confirmed judges are women and 37% are minorities, far greater proportions than those of his predecessors.

That's of lesser concern to conservative groups than Democrats' emerging majority, one that can only grow through 2016. If the next president is a Democrat — say, Hillary Rodham Clinton — the impact would be huge.

"At that point," says Curt Levey, president of the conservative Committee for Justice, "there would be very few Republicans left on the courts." ++



“I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.”
~ The Reverend Martin Luther King

To view this article, go to: http://polwaves.planetwaves.net/

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.