January, 02 2013, 02:14pm EDT
Empty Courtrooms in Obama's First Term: A Slow Start on Judicial Nominations Magnified Many Times Over By Republican Obstruction
WASHINGTON
As the U.S. Senate departs for the year, it leaves behind unfinished business: four long-pending circuit court nominations and 70 unfilled vacancies in the federal courts, with another 20 upcoming vacancies already announced.
President Obama ends his first term with more federal judicial vacancies than when he began. There are a number of reasons for this failure to efficiently fill seats in the federal courts, including the president's slow start in making nominations in the early years of his first term. But that slow start was magnified many times over by Senate Republicans' extreme intransigence, leading to a historic vacancy crisis in our federal courts that has persisted long after the White House picked up its pace on nominations. In an effort to keep the courts dominated by George W. Bush-nominated conservatives and to stall the president's agenda wherever possible, Senate Republicans have stymied the nomination and confirmation of federal judicial nominees at every step in the process and at an unprecedented scale.
The result was that almost every one of President Obama's first-term judicial nominees was delayed in the Judiciary Committee, and once approved by the Committee, waited an average of three times as long for a confirmation vote from the full Senate as did President Bush's first-term nominees.
That persistent obstruction led to record vacancy levels in the federal courts. The 55 vacancies at the start of Obama's presidency jumped to 90 over the course of his first year in office, and they have rarely gone below that number since. Notably, the president also ends his first term without confirming a single judge to the enormously influential Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, four of whose 11 seats are now vacant.
There were, of course, bright spots in the past four years of judicial nominations. Two extraordinarily qualified women earned seats on the Supreme Court. Sonia Sotomayor became the nation's first Latina Supreme Court justice, and Elena Kagan brought the total number of women on the Court to three for the first time in history.
President Obama also brought unprecedented diversity to the lower federal courts. 41 percent of President Obama's confirmed judicial nominees have been women - the highest percentage in history - and he has now put more women on the federal bench in four years than President Bush did in eight. President Obama has also nominated a higher percentage of African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian Americans than any previous president, ensuring that our federal courts are beginning to reflect the country they serve. In addition, President Obama has put more openly LGBT people on the federal bench than all of his predecessors combined.
But this effort to bring talented, fair-minded Americans with a diversity of backgrounds to the federal bench has been hampered by a consistent and needless slow-walking of nominees in the U.S. Senate. This memo outlines the obstruction tactics that have resulted in a persistently high vacancy rate in the federal courts and needless delays for Americans seeking justice.
Abuse of the Filibuster and Filibuster Equivalents
The most well-known tool of Senate obstruction - the filibuster - has been abused to a new level by the Senate GOP in the last two Congresses. In 2005, many Senate Republicans loudly proclaimed that it was unconstitutional - not just a bad idea, but actually a violation of the United States Constitution - for Democratic senators to filibuster a small number of George W. Bush's circuit court nominees on the well-documented grounds that they were dangerously out of the mainstream. A few others joined the bipartisan "Gang of 14," agreeing that filibusters of judicial nominations were only appropriate under undefined "extraordinary circumstances." After January 20, 2009, they threw their claimed principles to the wind and made clear just what constitutes "extraordinary circumstances" in their book: being nominated by a Democratic president.
The Senate GOP expanded the use of filibusters to stall the confirmation of consensus circuit court nominees. Of the ten circuit court nominations on which Democrats have had to file cloture in order to break GOP obstruction, half had cleared the Judiciary Committee with overwhelming bipartisan support, and half went on to be confirmed with similarly overwhelming bipartisan support. In one typical example, Republicans filibustered the nomination of Adalberto Jordan of Florida to sit on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, blocking a vote for four months after he was approved unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. (In contrast, the average confirmed circuit court nominee during President Bush's first term waited only a month for a floor vote.) Jordan, who had the strong support of Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, would become the first Cuban American to sit on the Eleventh Circuit. Once the filibuster was broken 89-5, he was confirmed in a 94-5 vote. No apologies or explanations for the filibuster were ever given.
Notably, the Senate GOP has been willing to filibuster even noncontroversial district court nominees, who historically have faced little partisan resistance on their way to trial court positions. The majority party had to move to end a filibuster of one district court nominee during the Clinton administration and one during the George W. Bush administration. In contrast, in just four years of President Obama's administration, the majority has been forced to file twenty cloture petitions to end filibusters of district court nominees, almost all of whom were eventually confirmed unanimously or near-unanimously.
And this is just obstruction that ended in cloture votes. Because scheduling a vote in the Senate requires unanimous consent, Senate Republicans have been able to quietly delay votes on judicial nominees for months without stating a reason. These quiet delays - which effectively amount to filibusters but are not formally recorded as such - have led to a tremendous and damaging slowing of the confirmation process. President Obama's circuit court nominees have, on average, been forced to wait 135 days between committee approval and a vote from the full Senate. In contrast, President Bush's first-term circuit court nominees waited an average of just 37 days for a Senate vote. Similarly, President Obama's district court nominees have waited an average of 103 days for a Senate vote, in contrast to just 35 days for Bush's first-term nominees.
Three of the four currently pending circuit court nominees have been held up by this type of silent filibuster: the GOP has simply refused to allow confirmation votes for Patty Shwartz (Third Circuit, waiting for a vote since March), Richard Taranto (Federal Circuit, also waiting since March), and William Kayatta (First Circuit, waiting since April). The fourth - Robert Bacharach - has been waiting "only" since June. Republicans defeated a cloture petition to end the filibuster of Bacharach's nomination, even after his home-state Republican senator Tom Coburn said that such a move would be "stupid." Not one of these nominees is opposed by their home state senators. In fact, two - Maine's Kayatta and Oklahoma's Bacharach - come from states where those supportive senators are both Republicans. All four nominees have received the highest possible evaluation of their qualifications by the ABA. They simply are not controversial. Their "problem" is that they are mainstream jurists nominated by President Obama.
Creative Obstruction
Filibusters and obstruction tactics on the Senate floor are the most visible types of Senate gridlock, but the GOP's obstruction of President Obama's first term judicial nominees went much deeper.
It started with the very process of finding potential nominees. President Obama has consulted extensively with home state senators to find qualified federal judicial nominees. But despite these efforts, a number of nominees are stuck in the Judiciary Committee awaiting hearings because the nominee's home-state senators have refused to give their permission for the nomination to go forward. In committee jargon, these senators have not signed the "blue slip" signaling a formal go-ahead.
For instance, the people of Georgia can thank their own senators for two long-open district court vacancies. In January 2011, President Obama nominated Linda T. Walker and V. Natasha Perdew Silas to fill two officially-designated emergency vacancies in Georgia's Northern District. Sens. Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss opposed Silas but never said why. Nevertheless, that was enough to keep her from even getting a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. And since Silas's nomination was linked to Walker's, the Georgia senators' machinations wrecked both nominations. Similarly, without giving a reason, Isakson and Chambliss have not submitted their blue slips for the undoubtedly qualified Jill Pryor for a Georgia-designated Eleventh Circuit seat, leaving her nomination in limbo for 10 months and counting.
In 2011, freshman Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson refused to submit his blue slips when President Obama renominated a circuit and district court nominee who had not gotten votes in 2010. These were nominees who had been recommended by a bipartisan commission, and no other newly elected senator that year blocked similar renominations in their state. As with Georgia's district court nominations, these were returned to the White House, and the seats remain vacant and without nominees.
This summer Louisiana Sen. David Vitter blocked the committee from considering the nomination of Shelly Dick to a district court seat she'd been nominated to back in April, unilaterally deciding that the Judiciary Committee should not consider her nomination because it was too close to the presidential election. After Obama's victory, Vitter relented, presenting her to the committee with his full support last month (but too late to be confirmed in 2012, as she should have been). In Nevada, Sen. Dean Heller has blocked a committee hearing on Elissa Cadish for reasons widely condemned as ludicrous: before the Supreme Court's 2008 gun control decision in Heller, she correctly described to a newspaper what was then the state of Second Amendment law.
Unfortunately, even once nominees had a chance to testify before the Judiciary Committee, they were not free from stalling tactics. Ranking Member Chuck Grassley, like Ranking Member Jeff Sessions before him, took advantage of a rule allowing the minority party to postpone committee votes on nominees to stall all but five of the nominees the committee considered - a full 97% of the nominees that have come before the committee for a vote. These nominations were delayed anywhere between one and six weeks before heading to further delays on the Senate floor.
Empty Excuses
In attempting to defend the indefensible, Senate Republicans have been flaunting faulty statistics and nonsensical comparisons. Criticized last month for his consistent use of stalling tactics, Sen. Grassley claimed that the Senate had confirmed more nominees in President Obama's first term than in a "similar period" in Bush's presidency. The "similar period" he referred to was in fact a "dissimilar period" - he cherry-picked numbers in order to compare President Obama's first term with George W. Bush's second term, in which the Senate confirmed fewer nominees simply because there were fewer vacancies to fill. And in any event, Bush's second-term confirmed nominees, just like his first, got a floor vote on average far more quickly than Obama's.
A Second-Term Focus on the Courts
One of the Senate's key duties is to ensure the health of the nation's judicial branch. But the Republican minority has increasingly ignored its duty to "advise and consent," instead using judicial nominees as pawns in politically-motivated gridlock. This has resulted in a vacancy crisis that has left federal courts across the country understaffed and unable to provide swift access to individuals and businesses seeking their day in court. It has also meant that the right-wing ideology that President Bush required in his judicial nominees continues to dominate the federal courts.
Elections have consequences. The American people once again decisively chose President Obama as the person we want to be choosing our federal judges. He has made an effort to name fair jurists with broad bases of support and diverse backgrounds. Senate Republicans have a responsibility to take their "advise and consent" duties seriously, considering nominees on their merits and moving the confirmation process as efficiently as possible in order to ensure a court system that works for the Americans who depend on it.
President Obama has signaled that he will make judicial nominations a priority in his second term. The Senate must do better in the next four years to ensure that Americans have a federal court system that works.
People For the American Way works to build a democratic society that implements the ideals of freedom, equality, opportunity and justice for all. We encourage civic participation, defend fundamental rights, and fight to dismantle systemic barriers to equitable opportunity. We fight against right-wing extremism and the injustice it fosters.
1 (800) 326-7329LATEST NEWS
Bernie Sanders Calls for Major Overhaul to Solve US Retirement Crisis
"If Congress can bail out the crooks on Wall Street," said the senator, "please do not tell me that Congress can't support a secure retirement for working Americans."
Mar 04, 2024
Days after hearing the testimony of a fourth-generation autoworker whose family has experienced first-hand the shredding of the social contract over the course of several decades, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders demanded on Monday that Congress swiftly pass legislation to cut the "unacceptable" rate of poverty among senior citizens and ensure that American workers can once again "retire with the dignity and the respect that they deserve."
In an op-ed for Fox News, Vermont independent senator wrote about the hearing he held last week as chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee about the country's retirement crisis.
The committee heard from Sara Schambers, whose grandfather retired at 55 from his job as an autoworker at Ford Motor Company, receiving "a pension and good healthcare" provided by the company where he'd worked for three decades.
Schambers' grandmother had to retire early due to a diagnosis of Lou Gehrig's disease, "but she didn’t have to choose between paying her medical bills and buying dinner for her family, because her job provided her with the retirement security she needed."
In sharp contrast, Schambers told Sanders and the rest of the committee that she will not have healthcare or a pension when she retires from her job as an autoworker.
"For generations, getting a job at Ford meant stability and security," said Schambers. "It meant being able to plan for yourself and your children. It meant being able to buy a house and see a future for yourself. But for those of us who were hired in after the financial crisis, that has not been our truth."
Schambers said auto companies have been "adamant that they couldn't afford to add to our pension liability... and that giving back our pensions could affect their stock prices and possibly lead to lower credit ratings. Nowadays, a stock price is more important than 150,000 autoworkers."
In his op-ed, Sanders wrote that the loss of pension and fixed benefit plans among American workers—60% of whom had them in the early 1980s, compared to just 4% in 2023—has led to a 23% poverty rate among senior citizens, one of the highest rates compared to other wealthy countries, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
"In Denmark, only 3% of seniors live in poverty," wrote Sanders. "In France, the senior poverty rate is 4.4%. In Germany, it's 9.1%. In Canada, it's 12.3%. In the United Kingdom, it's 15.5%."
Sanders called on Congress to pass the Social Security Expansion Act, which he introduced last year with nine other senators, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Tina Smith (D-Minn.).
The bill would make Social Security solvent for the next 75 years and expand the programs benefits for seniors and people with disabilities by $2,400 a year, making a difference to the 1-in-4 senior citizens who now live on less than $15,000 per year and 1-in-2 who live on less than $30,000 per year, as the Senate HELP Committee noted in a report ahead of the hearing last week.
In keeping with Sanders' longtime push to require the wealthy to pay their fair share into the program, the Social Security Expansion Act would apply the Social Security payroll tax to all income, including those from capital gains and dividends, for those who make more than $250,000 per year.
Currently, the senator wrote, the wealthiest Americans benefit from a cap on the Social Security payroll tax.
"Absurdly and unfairly, a billionaire pays the same amount of money into Social Security as someone who makes $168,700 a year," wrote Sanders. "That means, if you make up to $168,700 a year, you pay 6.2% of your income in Social Security taxes. But if you make 10 times more—$1,687,000—you pay just 0.62% of your income in Social Security taxes."
"That may make sense to someone," he added. It doesn't make sense to me."
In an interview with CNN over the weekend, Sanders was asked about a Republican proposal to raise the retirement age instead of properly funding Social Security by taxing the rich.
"Brilliant idea," said the senator sarcastically. "Yes, we've got our people, 87-year-olds packing groceries in a supermarket. You know, really? People have worked hard their whole lives, this is the richest country in the history of the world. Raise the retirement age, cut benefits? I don't think so."
Sanders proposed that every corporation in America should be required to either provide their employees with a retirement plan or "give workers the option of contributing to a federal pension plan similar to what members of Congress and federal employees receive."
"If Congress can provide trillions of dollars in tax breaks to billionaires and large corporations," said the senator, "if Congress can bail out the crooks on Wall Street who caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs, homes, and life savings back in 2008, please do not tell me that Congress can't support a secure retirement for working Americans."
Keep ReadingShow Less
AIPAC's Dark Money Arm Unleashes $100 Million Blitz on Progressives
"AIPAC and their Republican mega-donors are targeting Black and brown Democratic incumbents with the same right-wing playbook across the country," warned Rep. Cori Bush.
Mar 04, 2024
Amidst global outcry over the ongoing assault on Gaza and the related humanitarian crisis it has wrought,the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's super PAC is set to spend a staggering $100 million against both pro-Palestine congressional progressives and more moderate Democratic candidates who the powerful lobby group believes don't sufficiently support Israel.
With increasing numbers of Democrats speaking out against the far-right government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over its genocide in Gaza and violent repression in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, AIPAC has shown zero tolerance for even the mildest criticism of Israeli government policies and practices.
Dave Min, a Democratic California state senator running for Rep. Katie Porter's (D-Calif.) House seat, has said very little publicly about Israel since the October 7 attacks, which he strongly condemned. He does not support a Gaza cease-fire. Min did, however, make the mistake of criticizing Netanyahu's leadership and Israeli settlement expansion during private talks with AIPAC leaders and members.
United Democracy Project, AIPAC's dark money group, retaliated by firing a broadside of television and mail ads hammering Min over his May 2023 drunk driving arrest as part of a $4.5 million blitz against him. Feeling the heat, Min turned to someone painfully familiar with AIPAC's wrath—former Michigan Congressman Andy Levin, a two-term Democratic incumbent, former synagogue president, and self-described Zionist who lost his seat following a $4 million AIPAC barrage during the 2022 Democratic primaries. The group targeted Levin over his opposition to Israel's occupation.
The former congressman toldPolitico this week that "most" candidates can't survive AIPAC's deep-pocketed attacks: "I'm afraid that they can be quite successful in wiping them out."
Progressives have hit back by spotlighting AIPAC's Republican benefactors, and the group's endorsement of over 100 GOP lawmakers who voted to subvert the 2020 presidential election in service of former President Donald Trump's "Big Lie" that Democrats rigged the contest.
"AIPAC and their Republican mega-donors are targeting Black and brown Democratic incumbents with the same right-wing playbook across the country," said Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), an outspoken critic of Israel's war on Gaza and the author of an October cease-fire resolution subsequently co-sponsored by 18 House Democrats.
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) recently called AIPAC "basically a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP" and a "front group for conservative policy."
Referring to the National Rifle Association, the right-wing lobby group that fronts for the U.S. gun industry, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) last month slammed AIPAC as "the NRA of foreign policy."
Usamah Andrabi, communications director for Justice Democrats, told Politico that "a handful of Republican billionaire mega-donors are using AIPAC to spend in Democratic primaries against Black and brown progressives, funding primary campaigns against the most popular and progressive members, so this should be a scandal."
"The whole of the Democratic Party should be united in opposition to this," he added.
But it isn't, and part of the reason why is that many Democrats are beneficiaries of AIPAC's largesse. It wasn't a Republican who unseated Levin, but rather Democratic Rep. Haley Stevens—who has been staunchly supportive of Israel even as its military forces have killed and maimed more than 100,000 Palestinians, forcibly displaced around 90% of Gaza's 2.3 million people, and fueled growing famine by tightening an already crippling economic stranglehold on the besieged enclave.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), another strong pro-Israel voice, counted AIPAC as his top donor during the last election cycle. AIPAC has also been a leading contributor to lawmakers including Reps. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) and Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), who not only vocally support Israel, but also attack colleagues like Bush, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.)—the only Palestinian American in Congress—for their pro-Palestinian views.
Democratic Majority for Israel, an AIPAC-connected group, is attacking progressives while backing nine House Democratic candidates, including Joana Weiss, who is running a nasty campaign against Min in California. But DMFI's support pales in comparison to the $4.5 million that AIPAC's United Democracy Project has spent in a bid to defeat Min.
"Despite state Sen. Min's support of Israel, and a broad coalition of endorsements from the Jewish community, a number of Republican donors at AIPAC are upset that he has called for Bibi Netanyahu to be held accountable for the security failures on October 7 and Netanyahu's failure of leadership during this crisis," Min campaign manager Dan Driscoll said in a statement. "Sen. Min does not believe in the annexation of West Bank settlements, he had hoped that a constructive dialogue could be had. It appears they disagreed."
Maurice Mitchell, political director for the Working Families Party, acknowledged to Politico that progressives are hard-pressed to match AIPAC's financial firepower.
"We can never go dollar for dollar, but our goal is to be competitive and we're going to do that," he said.
Progressives point to Democratic Pennsylvania Congresswoman Summer Lee—who in 2022 defeated AIPAC-backed Democrat Steve Irwin—as a sign of hope.
"A Republican-funded Super PAC threatened to spend $100 million against us—and our grassroots people-powered movement has responded loud and clear," Lee said earlier this year.
"I am so proud of the multigenerational, multiracial movement we have built in Western Pennsylvania to protect and expand our democracy—it is our greatest defense against the dark money super PACs and corporate lobbies who seek to undermine it," she added. "They have Donald Trump and Nikki Haley's donors, we have the overwhelming power of the people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Historic Victory': Swiss Approve Pension Boost, Reject Later Retirement
"It is the people who have the power in Switzerland," one union leader said.
Mar 04, 2024
In a move that pensioners rights group Avivo called "a historic victory for retirees," Swiss voters on Sunday voted to boost their pension by one-month's payment.
At the same time, voters rejected a measure to raise the retirement age from 65 to 66. The vote marks the first time in Switzerland's history that its people have voted directly to increase their own benefits, and one expert said the break with the past could be a response to the government bailout of Credit Suisse in 2023.
"Many think that the entrepreneurs and managers have broken the unwritten Swiss social contract: That managers are modest with bonuses and debauchery and the people are modest with social demands," Michael Hermann, who leads the Sotomo poll, told newspaper SonntagsZeitung. "People have been angry for a long time about the behavior of corporations, managers, tax evaders. So you often hear now: 'If they help themselves, then we also want something for us.'"
"Democracy is alive and kicking in Switzerland."
The pension plan measure will see pensioners receive a 13th payment every November, as is already the case for Swiss paychecks, as BBC News explained. Currently, pensioners are paid between $1,393 and $2,760 a month, which many argue is not enough given Switzerland's high cost of living. Zurich tied with Singapore as the most expensive city in the world, according to a November report by the Economic Intelligence Unit.
"I'm retired now and so obviously I would like a bit more," 65-year-old Zurich voter Mery toldReuters. "It should allow me to give a little something to my grandchildren."
The extra payments will start in 2026.
The measure needed both a majority of voters and a majority of cantons to pass, which it secured with 58.24% of voters and 16 out of 26 cantons, according to Le Monde.
The increase was backed by left parties and the Swiss Trade Union Federation and opposed by business interests and the center-right government and parliament, who argued it would be difficult to pay for. This makes the yes vote especially surprising, as historically Swiss voters have not acted against government advice on financial matters. For example, they rejected previous proposals to shorten the work week and increase the number of vacation days.
"Democracy is alive and kicking in Switzerland," said Interior Minister Elisabeth Baume-Schneider.
Lukas Golder of polling firm gfs.bern, reports Reuters, told SRF that the vote was "a huge milestone from a union perspective."
Head of the Swiss Trade Union Federation Pierre-Yves Maillard, told RTS that the vote sent "a wonderful message to all those who have worked hard all of their lives" and proved that "it is the people who have the power in Switzerland," according to Le Monde.
The proposal to raise the retirement age by one year and tie it to life-expectancy was rejected by 74.72% of voters. Turnout for the election was high for a Swiss plebiscite, at more than 58%.
The election comes amid a push to raise the retirement age in other countries. France's Emmanuel Macron faced massive protests when he upped that country's retirement age from 62 to 64.
U.S. Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley has called for raising the retirement age for workers who are now in their 20s.
"They should plan on their retirement age being increased, yes," Haley said of younger workers during a January 10 debate.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular