Balkinization   |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List                                                                E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts What About Bush's Judicial Nominees?
|
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
What About Bush's Judicial Nominees?
David Stras
In response to my previous post on judicial appointments, see here, I have received some inquiries about whether I think that President-Elect Obama should renominate some of the pending (and less controversial) Bush 43 judicial nominees, including Peter Keisler. It should come as no surprise that my normative answer is yes because I believe that nominees such as Keisler have been unfairly held by the Senate. (In the interest of full disclosure, I worked with Peter while practicing law at Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood from 2001-2002 and think quite highly of him.) I would also encourage President-Elect Obama to renominate one of Bush's Fourth Circuit nominees, such as Judge Robert Conrad of the Western District of North Carolina, because of the record number of vacancies on that court. Both Keisler and Conrad have been unanimously deemed "highly qualified" by the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary.
Comments:
History didn't start with Bush's generous renomination of Gregory, though. The Democrats of that period clearly were looking to retaliate against Republican obstruction of Clinton nominees during the last several years of his presidency, including attempted filibusters by the party which swears that filibustering judicial nominees is against the norms and traditions of the Senate. The renomination of Gregory represented a legitimate effort to end the cycle of retaliation and regain some goodwill, but it was still only part of the equation, not the full picture. I assume the Democratic perspective would be that you don't get to block dozens and dozens of nominees, renominate a single one of them, and then claim that everything is suddenly okay.
I certainly don't think there's any harm in asking Obama to renominate a Bush appointee or two and he may well do it. Peter Keisler is a bit of a toughie just because the DC Circuit is so important, but hey, it never hurts to ask.
I expect much more of a fight from Republicans on judicial nominees than you seem to. First, I think you underestimate the extent to which Republicans have demonstrated party discipline. If they choose to block a nominee, I expect they will follow that course unanimously. Second, judicial nominations are one of the few areas in which Republicans can exercise power which benefits them -- their base cares a lot, while most Americans don't care much at all. Third, I think you overestimate the party unity of Democrats. Even in the best cases I expect a dissent or two. Combine these three factors with Harry Reid's weakness as Majority Leader and I think the Republicans will pose major obstacles to any effort to redeem the judiciary.
So Obama opposing Alito demonstrates that he doesn't have "bipartisan tendencies," huh? Because only some radical, raving partisan could have possibly opposed his elevation? Gotcha.
You really think after all its huffing and puffing about how filibustering judicial nominations is improper and its attempt to pass the nuclear option, the GOP will really filibuster any of Obama's nominees?
Yes. Well actually, the Republicans will threaten to fillibuster and the Democrats will cave in immediately. Like always.
Prof. StrasL
In response to my previous post on judicial appointments, see here, I have received some inquiries about whether I think that President-Elect Obama should renominate some of the pending (and less controversial) Bush 43 judicial nominees, including Peter Keisler.... Why? And just because you think so doesn't mean it's a good idea, much less required by "bipartisan civility" let alone law or even customary practise. It should come as no surprise that my normative answer is yes because I believe that nominees such as Keisler have been unfairly held by the Senate.... You might have though about that in 2000. ... I would also encourage President-Elect Obama to renominate one of Bush's Fourth Circuit nominees, such as Judge Robert Conrad of the Western District of North Carolina, because of the record number of vacancies on that court. Both Keisler and Conrad have been unanimously deemed "highly qualified" by the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. There's no shortage of ABA "highly qualified" candidates (not to mention Dubya decided to ignore that classification in lieu of FedSoc vetting long ago). You want your nominees, go win an election. THe people want something other than Dubya's raft of RW conservatives (of which he got plenty of his share in that last eight years). Your time is up. Toodeloo. Cheers,
Obama has not shown bipartisan tendencies with respect to judges as he voted to filibuster the Alito nomination and did not participate in the "Gang of 14."
Opposition to Alito is no sign of lack of bipartisanship. Cheers,
GlennNYC-
He didn't just oppose Alito, but he also voted to filibuster him (which is a further step toward partisan behavior).
Prof. Stras:
He didn't just oppose Alito, but he also voted to filibuster him (which is a further step toward partisan behavior). So if the Republicans filibuster any Obama appointees, that would be "partisan behaviour"? That's what they were doing when they filibustered Democratic bills these last two years? Hate to say it, but the Republicans have no leg to stand on that will allow them to scream "partisanship" at full volume intelligibly. Cheers,
He didn't just oppose Alito, but he also voted to filibuster him (which is a further step toward partisan behavior).
Maybe he thought that Alito was too conservative to serve on the Supreme Court? Look, I'd be in favor of a "grand bargain" (and I said this years ago anticipating the Bush presidency as well as now anticipating Obama) where every President gets their nominees on the courts. But short of that, each party is going to block the other's nominees, and whatever spin they put on it, it's because they are opposed to them ideologically. It isn't mere partisanship, it's substance. Alito replaced O'Connor and moved the Court to the right. Clinton nominees who were held up by anonymous holds would have moved the courts to the left. That's all this is. Either we are going to have a principle about confirming the President's nominees or we aren't. But if we aren't, then let's just be honest and admit that we are all trying to move the courts in one direction or another.
The Founding Fathers provided for the "advice and consent" procedure for key appointments in circumstances where the British monarch would only have acted on advice of the Privy Council. Indeed at the time there was discussion whether the new head of the executive should govern with a council of advisers. The role of the senate was considered to be the best solution with the senators as the "great and good greybeards" having an input in the national interest.
Given their constitutional role, it seems to me that it would be an abdication of constitutional duty to have any compact whereby the senators agreed simply to let through nominations. There is much merit in having a judiciary which is slightly what in the UK we call "small c - conservative" running slightly behind the extreme positions of the legal theorists. A balance of activists and strict constructionists - of liberals and conservatives - a bench where there is debate and an interplay of ideas - but where no faction dominates. The problem is that from Bork onwards there was a deliberate attempt to shift the judiciary to the right - in particular towards the "originalist heresy". Small wonder that there is a wish in some quarters to rebalance the mix. But, while the constitutional appointment power should probably stay as is, there might be a great deal of merit in having for the future some kind of permanent bipartisan advisory commission to draw up lists of recommended candidates for appointment to the president and the senate.
I find most of the comments here far too generous. Cries for "bi-partisanship" from a losing party really don't merit serious attention absent that party's demonstration of legitimate bi-partisanship prior to their loss. In the current case the GOP has been as poisonously divisive and partisan as anyone could imagine, and thus really has no grounds, other than the loser's cry for mercy, to suggest bi-partisanship at this moment in history. Let the GOP manifest and demonstrate it's own commitment to bi-partisan action for a term or two, that is, let the GOP first remove the polarized partisan plank from its own eye. Until then their cries deservedly fall on deaf ears.
Let the GOP manifest and demonstrate it's own commitment to bi-partisan action for a term or two, that is, let the GOP first remove the polarized partisan plank from its own eye.
Agreed. Do unto others and all that--you'd think the so-called "party of the Christian right" would be familiar with the "casting bread upon the waters" meme.
PMS_Chicago: Are you talking about them guys trying to pull their camels through needle eyes instead of feeding the Master's lambs? I think the translation that actually dominates is still "Do unto others, then split."
I wouldn't be surprised if Obama found at least one or two pending nominees he deems acceptable. It might not be for the more important 4th Circuit, but he has the mindset to try to throw the other side a few bones. This can help is a logrolling way too.
And, if a pretty firm Republican caucus makes a stink about someone, he might decide to not press the issue. Block voting, as Mark Field notes, is consistently characteristic of only one side here. 59 votes might help, but so would Obama tossing a few choices the way of Republicans. [Taking the NRO link to heart, this apparently can mean finding some Bush appointee that is safe enough to elevate. See Barrington Daniels Parker. Since they all weren't BAD, this is likely possible.] But, this is a lame example of parity: "Bush himself made when he renominated Roger Gregory, originally a Clinton nominee, to the Fourth Circuit in 2001" Look at the Wikipedia entry, but I recall this matter quite well w/o it. This was the seat that was vacant for about a decade, in large part because of a certain conservative senator holding up the works, Clinton repeatedly trying to fill it. Gregory was the first black to serve on the circuit. Given the history, Bush would have looked rather bad blocking things yet again. He was confirmed 93-1. Using his opposition to Alito as proof he was not "bipartisan" is rather lame. Others have said enough on that pt. Not supporting the Gang of 14 (which you previously suggested -- when I brought it up -- was just an example of horse trading anyway) is bit more useful in this respect. But, not by much, since it wasn't much of a compromise (the result was seating the most controversial judges at issue and time showed the "extreme circumstances" language was rather meaningless. It also is of little value to cite Estrada etc. without facing up to the fact that many of the problems were problems for significant reasons. Not just partisan nastiness.
John Dean here links up to some writings of OLC pick Dawn E. Johnsen, including a useful (and short) piece entitled "Should Ideology Matter in Selecting Federal Judges?: Ground Rules for the Debate."
It seems that every time Stras makes an entry, I have the strange feeling that he is living in an alternate universe, or else is a graduate of the Karl Rove Orwell School of Communications.
His definition of "bipartisanship" is a case in point. Since when is a vote against Alito any indication of a lack of true bipartisanship? And even stranger, exactly when did Bush pursue any type of bipartisanship in appointment of federal judges? Stras points to a grand total of two, out of hundreds of appointments. That's about as bipartisan as the rest of Bush's record. Ms. Stras's politics appear to be so far to the right -- as evidenced by his clerkship for Thomas -- that he considers Alito to be a moderate of some sort -- instead of being one or the two or three most right-wing Supreme Court justices of the last 70 years. Further, Stras apparently overlooks Alito's at-best questionable truthfulness during the confirmation hearings about his membership in the nationally infamous "Concerned Alumni of Princeton," a group aimed at keeping women and minorities out of Princeton. His claim was that he joined the group only because they supported having ROTC on campus, and that he had utterly no idea about everything else this rancid group stood for. And that must be the reason as well that he was careful to list it on his resume when applying to get in the Reagan Justice Department -- he wanted to let them know he was an avid ROTC supporter, of course. And then we were treated to the kubuki theater of his wife weeping behind him, at the mere thought that her husband might be even suspected of being racist and misogynist -- all just because he belonged to a group famously espousing that philosophy. That explanation demonstrated one of two things -- either that Alito was not telling the truth, or else was perhaps the most selective information parser history. In an almost mystical way, he DID know somehow where this group stood on ROTC -- a program to which Alito did not belong -- but somehow missed everything else this group was saying. And though listing his membership in his 1985 job application, he was, of course, also totally ignorant of this comment, in a 1983 issue of the group's magazine: ""People nowadays just don't seem to know their place," author H.W. Crocker III wrote in a 1983 issue of the magazine. "Everywhere one turns blacks and hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and hispanic, the physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports, and homosexuals are demanding that government vouchsafe them the right to bear children." The only reasonable conclusion was that Alito in fact was deliberately prevaricating. I live in the State of Washington, and attended the University of Washington for undergrad and law school, finishing in 1977. I have no friends from Princeton. Yet I was very well aware of this nefarious group, because it received a lot of attention in the natonal news, and especially in legal circles. So how come I and millions of others were somehow able to learn about this group, but a man attending Princeton, where it had an even higher profile, claimed he was ignorant. This doesn't even pass the giggle test, let alone the smell test. So I find it shocking that Stras would even attempt to argue that a vote against Alito was a vote against bipartisanship. And the "gang of 14" as such a measure? Please. That was seven official republicans; Lieberman, all but Republican; and seven "blue dog", conservative Democrats lacking any spine. Ross Taylor
The last comment noted the seven Dems were blue dogs w/o any spine. This might be fair, but as to Sen. Byrd at least, it seems less so.
Post a Comment
Also, note how Justice Alito, for some reason, was the only one who didn't show up when Obama/Biden came to visit. Perhaps, it was because they were so partisan?
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |