Voices of the Crust Speak But to Lie
11th April 2013
“Courts Without Judges” reads the headline of an attack on Senate Republicans by the New York Times editorial board. Bemoaning the fact that there 85 vacancies in the federal judiciary, the Times asserts that “by far the most important cause of this unfortunate state of affairs is the determination of Senate Republicans, for reasons of politics, ideology and spite, to confirm as few of President Obama’s judicial choices as possible.”
However, as Ed Whelan points out, in the second-to-last paragraph of the editorial we learn that “62 district and circuit court vacancies have no nominees.” Thus, the cause of three-quarters of the 85 vacancies is that President Obama hasn’t made nominations.
Of course, Democrats do exactly the same thing to Republican Presidential nominees (Judge Bork, are you listening?), but that somehow never seems to make it into the papers.
April 11th, 2013 at 18:13
What I have trouble understanding is why the Republicans confirm ANYBODY when they have the numbers to stop it that isn’t acceptable to them. So there’s a Supreme Court vacancy, for instance. Why not exact a stern price for letting the executive fill it?
April 11th, 2013 at 21:29
Because the Republicans fundamentally accept the Constitution. The President is supposed to make the appointments. If his liberal appointment is qualified, then we should confirm it. (It’s not like he’s going to nominate a conservative if we don’t confirm the first liberal.)
April 11th, 2013 at 22:36
Jay,
The constitution says the President makes the appointments, and specifies that they must be confirmed/approved by X legislative body. You’re assuming a rule of engagement that isn’t explicitly stated. Conservatives suffer horribly from this, applying ‘gentlemen’s rules’ when not dealing with gentlemen. Bottom line, you don’t have to approve ANYONE, and to approve anyone generally requires a majority or supermajority vote. Just say no, and keep saying no.