First Openly Gay Court of Appeals Nominee Asks Obama To Withdraw Nomination

[ruggerson]

After 18 Months Of Delays, First Openly Gay Court of Appeals Nominee Asks Obama To Withdraw Nomination

Edward DuMont is an outstanding attorney. A former Supreme Court advocate in the U.S. Solicitor General’s office and later a senior DOJ official responsible for computer crime, e-commerce and privacy, DuMont held a prestigious clerkship with conservative superjudge Richard Posner, and was voted one of the best appellate attorneys in the country in six different annual surveys of his peers. After President Obama nominated DuMont to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, three former Republican Solicitors General endorsed his nomination.

DuMont is also openly gay — indeed he would have been the first openly gay federal appeals judge in American history if he had been confirmed. Sadly, that will not happen. In a recently released letter, DuMont asked President Obama to withdraw his nomination — citing the nearly limitless ability of just a few senators to shut down the confirmation process:

<<snip>>

Worse, while DuMont’s opponents in the Senate have refused to even explain why they believe he is unsuited for the bench, it is difficult to ignore the fact that DuMont is not the first openly gay nominee to receive questionable treatment from Senate Republicans. Last month, the GOP caucus suddenly decided to oppose lesbian Judge Allison Nathan’s nomination to a federal court in New York after two anti-gay group announced they were opposing her. Like DuMont, Nathan is an exception attorney — a former Supreme Court clerk, even — and had broad bipartisan support. Indeed, many of the Republican Senators who voted against her confirmation on the Senate floor first voted for her in committee.

In other words, it’s difficult to escape the conclusion that Senate Republicans are holding gay nominees to a different standard than everyone else.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/11/10/366023/after-18-months-of-delays-first-openly-gay-court-of-appeals-nominee-asks-obama-to-withdraw-nomination/

[Better Believe It]

1. Why no recess appointment?

[jenmito]

3. There is no recess. The Repubs. always hold pro-forma sessions so that Obama can't make

any recess appointments.

[Tx4obama]

4. Because the Senate has not been going into recess.

In order for President Obama to make recess appointments the Senate has to be in 'recess'.
The GOP has been blocking 'adjournment' all year because they do not want any recess appointments to be made.
So, since they haven't been able to go into 'recess' the Senate has been having 'pro-forma sessions' when they have been on break.

Another thing to blame the GOP for.

[boston bean]

7. Which begs the question, of why didn't the democrats use this same tactic

against Bush????????????????????????????????????

[frazzled]

10. Because it is wrong

It stops government from functioning. For better or worse, people elected (at least the second time) Bush, and the Senate should minimally consider his nominees. This is an argument Russ Feingold took even further, voting for all kinds of Bush nominees we hated because he felt the president had a right to his own nominees, at least as cabinet appointments. I don't know about courts.

But this is intolerable. Just because the Republicans play vile and dirty doesn't mean that we should imitate them. It's disgusting, and it is frankly anti-democratic and an offense to the nation.

[former9thward]

14. It may be wrong but you are wrong also.

Democrats used the same tactic. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/washington/21recess.html

[former9thward]

13. They did. Especially in the last two years of Bush's term.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. They did, but very few times

Republicans still can't get over the fact that Miguel Estrada's nomination was filibustered and they think that's justification for holding up every person that Obama nominates to everything.

[dsc]

12. among other reasons

the appointment would only last a short time (until 2013) instead of lifetime.

[Tx4obama]

2. The article failed to mention that Alison Nathan HAS been confirmed.

SNIP

Alison Nathan, who has served as an adviser to President Barack Obama, is the third openly gay person confirmed to the federal bench.

SNIP

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x798393

[Tx4obama]

5. Also, James Paul Oetken (openly gay) has been confirmed as a federal judge

Judge Oetken
http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=6723

So the list of openly gay Federal Judges is growing:

1) Judge Deborah Batts - June 1994 - the nation's first openly LGBT, African-American federal judge.
2) Judge Paul Oetken - confirmed July 18, 2011 - by a 80-13 vote
3) Judge Alison Nathan - confirmed October 13, 2011 - by a 48–44

[ruggerson]

8. Frankly, those are depressing numbers - nothing to be happy about

Out of a nationwide Federal bench of thousands of judges, there are 2 or 3 openly gay ones (and zero on the Court of Appeals and the USSC).

That's truly unacceptable.

[Tx4obama]

17. Don't forget that the blame lies at the feet at George W. Bush

you didn't expect Bush to send a bunch of openly gay nominees to the federal bench during his eight years in the White House did ya?

And as far as the numbers go, where are you getting your 'thousands' figure from?

The Supreme Court of the United States - 9 justices
Federal Court of Appeals - 179 judgeships
Federal District Court- 678 judgeships

Yes, the number of 'openly gay' federal judges is low (but the confirmation of the two newest openly gay federal judges IS something to celebrate).

I would guess that there are many gay judges on the bench that just have not decided to come out publicly - that is their choice.

[ruggerson]

19. George Bush is not President

Obama is. And I've been rather vocal about lauding his nominees - that's one of the main reasons I support his re election.

As for the figures, if you are excluding non-Article III judges the figure is in the 800's. If you include non-Article III federal judges there are about 3,000 of them.

Even at 866, two or three openly gay judges is a travesty. It's not Obama's fault, but it is still a travesty nonetheless.

If he wins another term, which I think he will, it will be interesting to see if he has the political will to nominate Kathleen Sullivan or Pam Karlan to the next vacancy. He will be unconstrained by politics at that point and either of them would be history making nominees.

[Tx4obama]

22. I doubt that Obama's third appointment will be another female

I am hoping his next Supreme Court appointment will be Harold Koh or Goodwin Liu.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_Supreme_Court_candidates


The Senate wouldn't confirm Liu for a federal judgeship this year and he withdrew his name,
but since that time he has been appointed to the California Supreme Court.

List of other failed nominees here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_judicial_appointment_controversies

[Tx4obama]

24. I know that Bush is not president....

what I was referring to was that for EIGHT YEARS while Bush was in office there weren't any openly gay nominees sent to the senate judiciary committee for consideration. So, that is a huge part of why the total number of openly gay judges on the federal bench is currently low.

That was all I meant.

[rug]

6. I wonder if someone suggested to him that he write the letter.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Gosh, the entire straight world holds gay people to a different

standard than everyone else, so how is that surprising? I mean, once the President declared that God is in the mix and refuses to Sanctify gay couples, while piling on sanctity for ALL straight couples, who he says have a 'spiritual element' gays lack, it really is hard to claim that only THEY hold gay people to a different standard. Obama's declared standard for us is this: God tells him we are inferior, and the law must reflect that. If we were held to the same standards, we'd have the same rights, and Obama like the GOP is opposed to our equality. You can not promote a people while half way agreeing with their bigoted detractors.

[frazzled]

11. I doubt his nomination has been blocked simply because he's gay

Dozens of Obama's federal judge nominees have been blocked. They're not all gay. The Republicans are simply, again, trying to annul the Obama presidency and/or cause it to fail.

[Tx4obama]

15. Bullshit.

Your lumping Obama in with the GOP is bullshit.

It has been President Obama that is nominating openly gay nominees for federal judicial seats.

Judge Paul Oetken (confirmed July 18, 2011) and Judge Alison Nathan (confirmed October 13, 2011) were appointed by President Obama.

Show me where any republican president has ever nominated an openly gay person to a federal judicial position - there aren't any!

The GOP has blocked the majority of Obama's nominees - it has been a fight to get each and everyone of them confirmed - it has NOTHING to do with any of them being gay. There have been several other nominees that have had their nominations 'withdrawn',
and also several that the Senate sent back to the White House that Obama had to re-nominate and none of those had anything to do with anyone being gay either.

Seems like some folks enjoy bashing Obama at every turn, but never give him any credit when good things happen - like the confirmation of Judge Oetken and Judge Nathan.

[ruggerson]

16. You have no idea whether a nominee's orientation plays a part

in GOP judicial gamesmanship. The author of this piece clearly seems to think so, as some of the committee members who voted for Nathan reversed themselves and voted against her on the floor, after a couple of "religious" groups started raising holy hell about her.

And I (and others)routinely give Obama credit when he does the right thing regarding gay issues. As a matter of fact the link that you provide above celebrating Nathan's appointment is my own OP.

That's not to say I don't criticize him when he does someting indefensible. Like hiring a DNC "faith community" liaison who is against marriage equality. You and I both know what political game is being played there and it's a very ugly one.

[Tx4obama]

18. But the fact remains that there have been SEVERAL nominees that were not gay that ....

the republican senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 'yes' for in committee and then voted 'no' in the full senate.

So, saying that any senator has voted no on a nominee just because they are gay is only speculation and not based an a proven fact.

[ruggerson]

20. I think it is clear

that the author of the OP is expressing his opinion, which is what one does in an opinion piece. You don't know for a fact why certain GOP Senators vote the way they do anymore than the OP author does. He is providing us with his viewpoint and you are providing us with yours. Neither is fact, both are opinions and speculation derived from fact.

[Tx4obama]

23. I'll agree with you on that :) n/t

[Hawaii Hiker]

25. And there's Michael Fitzgerald as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_W._Fitzgerald

[Tx4obama]

26. Has he been scheduled for a Senate Judiciary hearing yet?

Btw, thanks for the comment/link - I had forgotten about him being the fourth.

:hi:

[Hawaii Hiker]

27. He's cleared the SJC along with the others that day

Ronnie Abrams, Miranda Du, etc.....Actually, Fitzgerald cleared via voice vote, the only one who had a roll call vote was Du, who cleared 10-8.....

[Tx4obama]

28. Hmmmm....

If Fitzgerald cleared with only a voice vote then the GOP must not have had a problem with him.
Or The GOP didn't want any of their 'yes' votes on the record.

I'm still surprised that DuMont wanted his name withdrawn - he was first nominated April 14, 2010.
Victoria F. Nourse has been waiting since July 14, 2010 and Caitlin Halligan since September 29, 2010 - and Louis Butler since September 30, 2009


An excerpt from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_judicial_appointment_controversies
SNIP
A spokesperson for Senator Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in August 2011 only that "There are questions in Mr. DuMont's background investigation that have to be resolved."
SNIP
---
I wonder what the 'questions' where(?).


Edited to add...

SNIP
The committee spokeswoman for ranking minority committee member Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Beth Levine, told Metro Weekly today, however, ''There are questions in Mr. DuMont's background investigation that have to be resolved.''

Levine confirmed that the questions have been shared with the Democrats on the committee and with DuMont, but said that she was unaware of and, in any event, could not share any specifics.

SNIP

http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=6469

[Hawaii Hiker]

29. It's a continuing pattern with Court of Appeals nominees

MANY are getting blocked, denied a vote, etc..

Goodwin Liu
Edward DuMont
Victoria Nourse
Stephen Six
Caitlin Halligan - At least she's cleared the SJC (in MARCH), but is STILL waiting for a full senate vote..

[stevenleser]

31. Had the honor to know Cailin Halligan. She kicks butt... nt

[Zorra]

30. Another reason OWS needs everyone's support. nt