Associated Press
Robert Bacharach
As Senate Republicans take obstructionist tactics to levels unseen in American history, the effects are seen throughout government, most notably on the federal courts. Because the GOP minority cares more about blocking President Obama's judicial nominees than the courts' ability to function, there are an extraordinary number of judicial vacancies, with more on the way.
The only way to resolve the problem is for Senate Republicans to become more responsible. Robert Bacharach offers a perfect example of how the GOP is actually getting worse, not better.
The White House's Jennifer Palmieri summarized the story nicely last night.
This evening the Senate confirmed Robert Bacharach to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Oklahoma. Judge Bacharach waited 263 days for a Senate floor vote, only to be approved overwhelmingly, by a vote of 93-0. Not only was Judge Bacharach supported by the two Republican Senators from Oklahoma, he was recommended to the White House for this judgeship by Senator Coburn in October 2011.
Yet, early last summer, Senate Republicans blocked Judge Bacharach from even getting an up or down vote – the first successful filibuster of a judicial nominee who had bipartisan support in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Look, I understand that Senate Republicans are not going to like some of the White House's more progressive judicial nominees. But in this case, Republicans filibustered a judge they like. The Senate GOP asked Obama to nominate Bacharach; the president agreed; and Republicans blocked their own choice for 263 days anyway.
Why? Because Republicans chose to obstruct for the sake of obstructionism. Even Tom Coburn, whom no one would fairly characterize as a moderate, called this "stupid."
And the closer one looks, the dumber it appears.
This is, for example, the longest delay ever seen for a judicial nominee who had literally no opposition.
I'll gladly concede that when it comes to judicial nominees, there are no angels among the various partisan players. Senate Republicans rewrote the rules under Bill Clinton and Senate Democrats blocked votes on some right-wing nominees under George W. Bush. But no one has ever seen tactics like those we're witnessing now.
Palmieri added, "To put this obstruction in some perspective, the average wait time for President George W. Bush's federal appellate judicial nominees, from Committee vote to confirmation, at this point in his presidency was 35 days. By contrast, the average wait time for President Obama's federal appellate judicial nominees has been 147 days."
It's not uncommon for some on the left to complain that the White House has often been slow to nominate jurists to fill many of these vacancies, and the criticisms are not without merit. But try to consider this from the president's perspective: why rush to send judicial nominees to the Senate when the broken and dysfunctional chamber needs 263 days to confirm a judge who has no opponents?
Coburn added last night, "I think the Senate owes Judge Bacharach an apology." I think that's a fair assessment, though the sentence seems to be missing the word "Republican" -- it's not just the Senate that failed miserably in this confirmation process; it's the GOP minority that took the extraordinary step of filibustering a judge they wanted to confirm.
Leave a Comment:
why are there no laws that enforce a maximum limit on the delay? Laws governing Congress should ensure that it works in a timely fashion. Can ANY republican explain how/why their party is doing this (especially in a case where they actually support the nominee)?
Because stupid Harry Reid didn't reform the filibuster
the stupid burns with this group
But...but...but...Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell "shook hands", right? Everything is all better from now on, right?
We shall see if this changes for the better this Congress. If not, Harry Reid claimed he would take action...
At this point, I'm blaming Harry Reid for not fixing the filibuster -- at least with regards to confirmations. By now, everyone knows how Republicans are. Not fixing the filibuster was the equivalent of not defanging a viper when you had a chance.
Hmm. Harry Reid we can thank you again.
When faced with this exact same situation, then Senate Leader Bill Frist told the Democrats to either allow an up or down vote, or he would invoke the "nuclear option". The "nuclear option" was avoided and the votes were taken.
So what do we hear from good old Harry? Chirp, chirp, chirp.
So, you're saying that Harry had the power to get all the Dems to vote for the broader Merkley rule change, but chose not to? Both Baucus and Levin have been in the Senate longer and Levin's name is on the rule change that won (with McCain's). Manchin and Pryor were opposed also and I think one more. I've thought Harry added his vote to give cover to them, especially since Merkley was chastised for "talking" out of school about those who opposed before the vote. So, what do you know about Harry's culpability? Are you also saying that Reid could have, just by invoking the Frist demand of yesteryear, compelled the Republicans in this Senate (who voted overwhelmingly as a block to oppose EVERY bill backed by the President and the other Dems)? I wanted Merkley's proposal to pass as much as anyone, but I'd really like to know how a different majority leader would have gotten a different outcome, given Baucus, Levin, Pryor, and Manchin's opposition. Please tell me.
Judy,
Look up the "nuclear option" and Frist.
Reid can invoke this unilaterally, he doesn't need to take a vote on it. It gets rid of the 60 vote filibuster rule and everything is then done by a simple majority. So even if Baucus, Levin, Pryor and Manchin all got together and went against Reid, all he would need is King and Sanders to vote with him and he's got the 51 votes he needs.
Thanks, Dogjudge, I needed that. I think.
I have to disagree, Dogjudge. For Sen. Reid to impose the "nuclear option" requires a majority vote (50+1). If Reid didn't have the votes to change the filibuster rules (50+1), why do think he'd be able to exercise the "nuclear option"?
You might find an article on DKos to be of interest. It was written, I believe, by David Waldman shortly after Reid's latest "gentleman's agreement" with McConnell in January 2013. While he was trying to make the best of what is not a good deal, Waldman mentioned that Reid had already employed the "nuclear option" back in October of 2011! I forget the exact details of why Sen. Reid did so, but he marched 51 Senators, out of a 52-member caucus, into the Senate and changed the rules. The Sen. Nelson from NE/SD/ND? was the only Democrat to vote against the action and he's no longer in the Senate.
Which implies to me that part of the latest deal Reid made with McConnell includes that very same threat, voiced or not. I also believe it may very well be the reason Senate Republicans were so averse to labeling their onslaught against now-SoD Hagel as a filibuster.
Which could explain why the Republicans dropped their opposition to Bacharach rather precipitously. A ruling from the chair that continued opposition to Bacharach's appointment did constitute a filibuster might have been all the ammunition Reid needed for a repeat of October, 2011.
Anyway, I highly recommend that article and ecourage everyone to read it.
Well, since Obama accepted their suggestion to nominate this guy, the GOP must have inferred that he knew something about him that they didn't, presumably that he's a closet communist. Why else would Obama possibly accept him?
Dear Harry Reid,
Thank you so much for not changing the filibuster rules! You thought that you were dealing with a "gentleman" when you and McTurtle made your agreement, all you got (& WE) is snookered!
you ain't seen nothing yet. just watch what happens if one of the wingnut five on scotus drops dead or strokes out. it will be something to behold.
I think the scheme is obvious. Delay every judicial nomination for as long as possible and eventually, the clock will run out on Obama's ability to nominate judges. The Senate Republicans don't care about vacancies, so long as a Democrat has the authority to fill them. If they can wait long enough, maybe a Republican can nominate judges for those vacancies. My prediction is that Obama is going to come out of two terms with the lowest rate of filled judicial vacancies we've seen in... forever.
I am still waiting for Harry Reid to be removed as Senate Majority Leader. Replace him now that his failure to reform the filibuster has lead to so much ridiculous situations.
Appoint a Democratic woman and watch the GOP go beserk!
I am of the opinion that it should be unconstitutional to filibuster judicial nominees and other presidential appointees. The Constitution says "subject to the advise and consent of the Senate" not " subject to the childish whims of a minority of the Senate." And for the record, I said the same thing when Half-Wit George was in office and sending up morons and psychotics like Janice Rogers Brown and Samuel Alito. When Kitty-Killer Frist was threatening the nuclear option, I was all for it.
Senate's self-appointed rules and as well as those of the House's leader, makes void all discussions of all issues when all issues are subject to the abuse of those rules.
In effect awful a lot of people are wasting an awful lot of time looking introspectively as to the why and wherefores of one specific issue (e.g. Judicial Appointment). Searching endless for some rational basis of this one example of abuse, hoping, pleading, wishing and wallowing itself doubt, to the point of exhaustion.
Entirely missing the possibility that there might be more that only one issue adding up to the most certain confusion that having two or more issues when we can only focus on one at a time. This confusion forces even the most civil and conscientious mind in indeterminate state. This is like never having seen a tree before, the reporter ties to figure how it works, but does not look up ward, to see that there is a second tree. There the reporter would be dismayed that it was one tree that was wasting his time. Later on reflection, past press time the reporter looked at that second tree and mistakes it as being the same as the first tree. The reported failed to notice that the rest of the forest having more trees that you can count. The reality is that political forest has many species of trees and for particular forest there might be 12 species.
So it might be that a dozen or so species of political problem might be a very serious infection capable of decimating the forest.
The abuse of its rules makes the Constitution's grant of infinite self-determined power given to the Senate/House, the obvious root cause of the problems of a government that is ironically under savage attack by politicians who claim not to member of a club that would have them as members.
Politicians elected are to that very Government that they oppose and have been sabotaging for decades. If it is the end of government that politicians seek then as that government withers on the vine should not its demise also sweep politician into the same compost heap.
Just as the powerful virus corrupts -- the mold that inhabits -- the bacteria that infects -- the cells that grows -- the tumor that forces man to continue waste efforts to feed the power virus, there is no cure in ignoring the virus of power that will cause the extinction of man.
Can we not say what we see when all we see is source of the problem?
The power virus rots the head?
SourceL MODERN LIFE AND THOUGHT, Frederick Houk Law, Ph.D., Head of the Department of English in the Stuyvesant High School. The Century Co. 1928 - 239, Copyright Assigned to Frederick H, Law, 1931.
Also Search: "Now, it is not surprising that vice-caterers should corrupt the police and that franchise-seeking corporations should buy councilmen"
Changing America: studies in contemporary society, By Edward Alsworth Ross
Why would Obama agree to nominate a judge that the Rethugs approve of??? I don't understand it.
Part of the problem here is financially these Taliban judges have careers that do not require they have to worry about maintaining their economic status. They do not come up through street politics but are appointed by bar processes dominated by the Taliban. So they retain their legal partnerships and wait
Thank you Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Carl Levin, Dick Durbin, Max Baucus, and the rest of you morons who wouldn't reform the filibuster when you could have. And I really really hate having to put Barbara Boxer's name on that list, that she of all of them couldn't see the b.s. is beyond belief.
Thanks again to Harry Reid and all the lame Democrats unwilling to fight fire with fire. So the country keeps flying off the handle to the right. What the fukk do any of you asswholes care?
Oh, I hope that judge's friends call him "Bert."
Voters need to pay attention when their elected officials act like 2-yr. olds throwing tantrums and doing nothing but obstruct the president's every move. These sell-outs have only one agenda - slow down progress and blame the President. They are deaf and blind to the voices and needs of their constituents. It's time to kick them off the gravy train .... Vote smart in 2014!
Oooh! I have a good idea. What about real filibuster reform?