The so-called "mainstream media" have been pressed into service by liberal apologists (as if those are different camps – silly me!) for the administration to "explain" why President Barack Obama has such poor numbers for judicial confirmations. In a Nov. 16 Los Angeles Times article by David Savage, the finger of blame points to a predictable target:
"…liberal activists have voiced growing irritation that Republicans are quietly using their minority power to block Senate votes on President Obama's judicial nominees. They note that during the Bush administration, Republicans insisted the president's nominees deserved up-or-down votes."
The story mentions only two judicial nominees (David Hamilton and Edward Chen), but leaves the impression that all nominees have been obstructed.
I was dubious that Republicans could somehow have found a more effective way to obstruct nominees than the Democrats, so I looked at the story for hints. Apparently, according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Republicans won't agree to a unanimous consent agreement that would bring nominees who have made it on to the Senate's Executive Calendar (i.e., have been voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee) to the floor for an up-or-down vote without debate. If Republicans want a debate, this forces Reid to go through the onerous task of – filing a motion to bring the nominee to the floor for a vote.
Such obstruction makes me shudder.
But it gets worse for the accusers of Republican obstructionism.
Even the statistics say that Reid (along with the liberal press and liberal judicial groups) is stretching for any kind of believable story line. Of the 25 nominations President Obama's made (way under the number at this same time for Bush - 64), only 14 have made it onto the Senate's Executive Calendar for consideration. Democrats control the process all the way up to that point, so Republicans don't share any blame there.
Of those 14, six have been confirmed through the highly contentious and obstructionist tactic known as the "unanimous consent agreement." You know, the very procedure that Reid says the Republicans are avoiding.
Of the remaining eight on the Senate calendar, five have been there for a month or less. That's not a delay in anyone's book. (Until you can at least match Sen. Leahy's Judiciary chairmanship record during the 107th Congress of 19 months in which no hearings were held on 12 Bush nominees, and another three received a hearing but no committee vote, don't even talk to me about obstruction. You're still in the minor leagues.)
That leaves three nominees. David Hamilton, a decidedly controversial nominee for the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (who as a federal district court judge threw out a pro-life "informed consent" law and forbade only Christian prayers in the Indiana Legislature) is deserving of a thorough floor debate and then a "No" vote. And Reid finally filed a "cloture" motion on Hamilton on Nov. 10, which means the Senate will vote on him this week. Reid may have been avoiding debate on the radioactive Hamilton by not filing his cloture motion until now, but that's not the Republicans' fault. The other two nominees - for the 3rd Circuit and 11th Circuit - have been "waiting" since Oct. 1, and Sept. 10th.
Bottom line: The president has been horribly slow at nominating judges and his friends are trying to deflect any valid criticism away from him by blaming – who else? – Republicans!
FOR MORE INFORMATION
To read more from Bruce Hausknecht or any of our other policy analysts, visit the DriveThru blog.
