Vacancy Rate Low for Federal Courts (* on record pace confirmations)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.latimes.com/la-110503judges_lat,1,6432497.story?coll=la-home-leftrail

The vacancy rate on the federal bench is at its lowest point in 13 years, thanks to a recent surge of judges nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate.

The intense partisan battle over a handful of judges aside, Bush has already won approval of more judges than President Reagan achieved in his first term in the White House. And with 67 of his nominees winning confirmation by the end of October, Bush has a better record this year than President Clinton achieved in seven of his eight years in office.

Experts who track federal judgeships say the Republican complaints about an unprecedented Democratic filibuster over four judges have obscured the larger picture.

"The Bush administration has been spectacularly successful in getting the overwhelming proportion of its judicial nominations confirmed. There are only a relative handful being filibustered and held up," said political scientist Sheldon Goldman at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

[realFedUp]

1. Thanks to Democrats....

an no thanks to the Orrin Hatchet machine holding
up Clinton's nominees for 8 years.

[Lindsay]

2. Hmmmmm....

If you listen to the Senate Repugs, the Dems are holding up judicial nominations at an alarming rate.

(Okay, I know better than to believe what the Repugs say.)

[snippy]

3. Perhaps republicans are hypocritical liars?

From a May, 2001 Salon article:

Senate Republicans did use myriad bureaucratic tools to block a staggering and unprecedented 167 of Clinton's judicial nominees -- tools that Hatch is now trying to throw into the incinerator. In particular, he wants to nix an agreement that allows senators to block a nomination of a judicial candidate from their home state. Senate Democrats worried that Hatch was trying to pave the way for the Bush team to push as many hard-right conservatives onto the bench as possible, with little regard for moderation or bipartisanship.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/05/10/judiciary/

The republicans did change the rules so that now the only way to block a nomination is by filibustering it.

From an October 28, 2003 statement by Senator Leahy:

When the Administration has been willing to work with the Senate, we have made progress. Indeed, last night the Senate confirmed the 167th judicial nominee of this President.

In less than three years’ time, President George W. Bush has exceeded the number of judicial nominees confirmed for President Reagan in all four years of his first term in office. Senate Democrats have cooperated so that this President has now exceeded the record in his entire four-year first term of the President Republicans acknowledge to be the “all time champ” at appointing federal judges. Since July 2001, despite the fact that the Senate majority has shifted twice, a total of 167 judicial nominations have been confirmed, including 29 circuit court appointments. One hundred judges were confirmed in the 17 months of the Democratic Senate majority and now 67 have been confirmed during the comparative time of the Republican majority.

http://www.senate.gov/~leahy/press/200310/102803b.html

Whenever I hear a republican complain about democrats blockong "all of Bush's judges," I interrupt immediately and say that a person would have to be astonishingly ignorant or misinformed to believe the lying hypocrisy of the republicans about this. I then ask how many judges Bush has had confirmed and how many blocked and how many Clinton had blocked. They never know. So I tell them. I usually, though not always, then point out that that person has proved my initial point about astonishing ignorance, misinformation and lying hypocisy.

[lifelong_Dem]

4. Everyone who voted for Ralph Nader should be forced to read this article

Elections have consequences that last far beyond the 4-year term of office. These guys will be on the bench for LIFE.

I hope those Naderites are happy.

[SomeAreSalt]

5. I fail to see benefit in slamming Greens

It really sounds like you don't approve of anyone that doesn't vote as you think they should. That's not tolerant nor respectful of other peoples voting choices. If we want a dictatorship we can move to Cuba.

For now I believe people have the right to vote for whom they choose without browbeating.

[snippy]

7. What browbeating?

It really sounds like you don't approve of anyone that doesn't think as you think they should. That's not tolerant nor respectful of other peoples opinions. If we want totalitarianism we can vote republican.

I believe people have the right to think what they choose without browbeating. I believe this not only "for now" but always.

[iam]

9. Nader made the mistake,

not the people who voted for him. Liberalism encourages people to vote for whomever. Nader decided to push in Fla. in spite of warnings that the state would be the determining factor between bush* and Albert Gore.
Nader made the mistake.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

6. Show this article to "Confederate Leftover" Zig Zag Zell!!!

.

[dusty64]

8. Hmmmm, this is a

fact that you usually wouldn't see in the media. Those damn "obstructionist" Democrats.