Where Are All The Young Liberal Judges?
Because of both Senate obstructionism and the relatively low priority placed on them by the Obama administration, the pace of appointments to the federal judiciary has been regrettably low. But quantity isn’t the only issue. Under current norms, Supreme Court justices tend to come from the federal appellate courts. Particularly since the Reagan administration, Republican presidents have been very conscious of trying to put young conservatives on the federal appellate bench. This is how you get John Roberts and Sam Alito appointed to the Court at a young age, in addition to federal courts stacked with your appointments for a long time. Obama, however, has yet to get a single appellate court judge under 45 appointed to the appellate courts. Since the inauguration of Reagan, “Republicans have appointed 41 federal appellate judges under age 45 to the Democrats’ 10.”
Appointments to the federal courts are one of the increasing number of areas in which there is increasing asymmetry between the parties. For 30 years, Republicans have placed a high priority on packing the federal courts with young conservatives, while the Democratic administrations during this time have not placed a commensurate priority on getting young liberal judges confirmed. This might be OK if Democrats were gaining institutional advantages in other areas, but I don’t see that they are.
In fell swoops, Obama could make recess appointments this weekend which would a) put more judges on the bench and b) force Boener to make good on his threat to recall Congress, where Obama can punish them.
He could, but he won’t because that would not be moderate and bipartisany.
It’s almost as if Obama isn’t a liberal!
Obama cannot do any recess appointments because Congress has been staying open with pro forma sessions.
Recess appointments to the federal bench are a lot less useful than recess appointments to the executive branch, though.
Most persons who are potentially the subject of a recess appointment to the federal bench are likely to decline that appointment. It would mean resigning whatever job they have now with no guaranty of employment beyond a year (if the Senate adjours without acting on the appointment, the appointment expires).
True, but en masse, they are more likely to pass through the Senate quickly, since it’s an affirmation vote and can circumvent cloture.
Thats true but I still think that most potential appointees would not take the risk of finding themselves without a job in a year.
And isn’t Congress staying open in pro-forma sessions to prevent recess appointments this summer?
Obama broke the recent “only a judge can be a Justice” tradition. If this signals a shift towards broadening the applicant pool (agnostic as to whether that’s a good idea), I don’t see the ages of circuit court appointees as such a big problem. There are always circuit court judges taking senior status or dying, so as long as Democrats do ok in presidential elections, they should gradually win back parity on the federal bench. Age really does matter for Supreme Court Justices, so better to pick a 45-year-old law prof than a 60-year-old appellate judge if that’s what it comes down to.
Your are right about SCOTUS but wrong about the federal bench. If you are making half the appointments but your appointment serve on average 10 years less, you will have fewer appointments serving at any given time in the steady state.
Right. It’s not necessarily a big deal for SCOTUS, but who sits on the federal appeals courts is a very big deal in itself.
I guess this is really what drives home the point that the goals of the power players in the Republican party actually represent to a certain degree the views of their voting base while in the Democratic party the big money is coming from Wall Street which couldn’t care less about about the base’s views.
So on highly visible issues, the Democrats push for liberal policy. But on less visible issues, Democratic politicians couldn’t care less, while the Republicans are working relentlessly to advance their agenda.
Just think about it this way: how many big Democratic financial supporters are going to come to a fund-raising event and spend a bunch of time congratulating politicians on their judicial appointments. Yet I can easily see this happening at a Republican event. Voters can’t push issues like federal appointments, but the top 1000 donors probably can.
There’s even a certain asymmetry to this statement.
The key is that “liberal policies” aren’t the agenda of most Democratic politicians, which is why they go about advancing their (actual) agendas a bit more quietly.
Too often people talk about Democrats as if they were weak-willed or politically incompetent liberals / progressives, when in fact they’re perfectly competent “centrists” (in the Beltway sense of that word) who need to rely on a more liberal / progressive base to get elected.
This is brilliant strategy by the Republicans.
It kind of reminds me of an old joke:
Satan bets God that his baseball team can beat God’s.
God says, “Are you crazy? I’ve got Josh Gibson behind the plate, Gehrig at 1st, Jackie at 2nd, HR Baker at 3rd, Honus at SS, Mantle in LF, DiMaggio in CF, Ruth in RF, and I’ll start Satchel Paige, or Walter Johnson, or Lefty Grove. Hell, ooops, sorry about that, I’ve even got Cobb to DH, if the DH weren’t satanic – ooops, sorry again. And Casey will manage my team. Who’ve you got that could beat that?”
Satan says, “Well, I’ll catch Stalin, play Mao at 1st, Pol Pot at 2nd, Hitler at 3rd, Caligula at SS, Nero in left, Ghengis Khan in CF, Torquemada in RF, and I’ll start either Walter O’Malley, Idi Amin, or Osama bin Laden. And Saddam Hussein will manage my team.”
God looks at Satan and says, “You’ve got NO chance! Nobody on your teams even knows what a baseball is or looks like, except for O’Malley. How in the world are you going to beat me?”
And Satan says, “It doesn’t matter who I play. I’ve got all of the umpires!”
And that’s what Conservatives are trying to do.
If they game the system, they want to be sure they’re umpiring the games.
Ooops, that last sentence should read, “If they can’t game the system politically, they want to be sure they’re umpiring the games.”
Sidebar: Are people still bitching about the DH? People who aren’t Murray Wass? The rule is older than I am, and I’m not young.
Yeah, I still am, and I’m a Yankee and AL fan.
It’s as if in one football league field goals were allowed, and in another, not.
And that home field determined use.
Maybe that’s a poor analogy, but it’s the best one I can think of off the top of my head at this second.
I hate that in interleague games, and especially the WS games, BOTH teams are handicapped:
The AL has a well established DH ready in home games, and pitchers who couldn’t hit a pinata with magnified night-vision goggles and and oar paddle away; while the other team has some ancient veteran, or 9th, or worse IF/OF picking up a bat, but pitchers who’ve at least bunted or sacrificed before.
I don’t hate the DH per se. I hate that in almost 40 years, there’s been NO DECISION made yet?
Make up your minds. I can deal with it either way. Just fucking DO IT!!!
Ah, you’re bitching about the ASYMMETRY.
This is a legitimate gripe, and I salute you for it, sir. I was bracing myself for a rant about how in the old days blah blah blah yankeecakes.
Dems actually have to worry about governing and making policies other than tax cuts and wars, snark, so they have less capital left to deal with judicial nominations. Obama had two or more wars, a major economic mess, two supreme court vacancies, a major health law etc. to deal with.
I do agree he should try to do more about filling judicial vacancies but it’s a lot harder politically and practicably to do so. As to age, the article says Bush in 8 years had 13 under 45. He had an easier time of it. If Obama goes eight years, you’d think he manage a few. So, given everything, it isn’t a big number.
I look forward to Judge Liu (CASC) being nominated in ’15. :)
On the bright side, I guess President Perry wouldn’t have any trouble getting him through Congress.
Pick me! Pick me!
Your point is fairly obvious. As such, it’s tough to disagree with those who fault the democratic leadership with intentionally dropping the ball.
It’s sometimes referred to as being in “cahoots”.
I would also respectfully submit that Republicans have done this while consistently denying that that is what they are doing, while at the same time consistently tarring every Democratic administration’s nominees as blatant attempts at partisan ideological infiltration. The earliest example of this in my memory was Robert Bork, who is still help up as an example of Democrat/liberal evil shenanigans even though Bork was a former Nixon hatchetman and so conservative he still adovcated poll taxes, and the nomination processes of Alito and Roberts were ridiculous exercises in Kabuki theater. Anyone who still thinks that a Republican nominee for the SC seriously considers their role to be that of an umpire calling balls and strikes needs to have their head examined.
As if he could just snap his fingers and make it right. Fuck. You’d think there wasn’t a whole party apparatus bent on making everything he does incredibly difficult.
too bad there isn’t a different party’s apparatus working with him
T quote Brad DeLong, doesn’t anyone around here know how to play this game?
DeLong was quoting Casey Stengel, manager of the 1962 Mets, who went from winning 7 World Series in 12 years with the Yankees to managing the 1962 Mets.
I heard Scott Brown on the radio yesterday complaining that the Senate spent too much time on judges – and believe me, he said it like judicial appointments are about as important as renaming post offices – and not enough time on the deficit. In short, we’re fucked.
[...] Where Are All The Young Liberal Judges? [ 23 ]August 12, 2011 | Scott Lemieux [...]
Clinton was relatively indifferent to putting liberal (vs. “centrist”) judges on the bench.
Aaaaaaand a Clinton appointee made it 2-1 to strike down the insurance mandate in the 11th Circuit today.
Center for American Progress guy e-mails J. Cohn at TNR:
Although Frank Hull’s nomination to the 11th Circuit has Bill Clinton’s name on it, she got Clinton’s nod because the GOP-controlled Senate would not confirm a progressive or even centrist judge to this seat, and Clinton decided it was better to appoint a very conservative judge than leave this judgeship vacant. Since joining the court, Hull has consistently restricted individual rights and favors prosecutors over criminal defendants. We now know that she also holds a very radical view of Congress’ enumerated powers. That is unfortunate, but it also places her well to the right of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy.
Good move, Bill.
If he had left the seat empty, Bush would have filled it with someone to Hull’s right, and Democrats in the Senate would have voted for it. This is clearly Clinton’s fault.
I will agree that this is yet another example of Dems being screwed by their commitment to actually trying to run a country, but I have trouble laying the blame on WJC as opposed to, say, Landreaux or Baucus or whomever.
[...] of partisan asymmetry in judicial appointments, it should be added that a Democratic appointee finding the mandate [...]
[...] maybe not: Obama, however, has yet to get a single appellate court judge under 45 appointed to the appellate [...]