Judicial Confirmation Statistics

[Ozoned]

Judicial Confirmation Statistics

I recall several posters here citing judicial confirmation statistics as "almost all".

Well, not only are they wrong, but it seems that "obstructionism" as it applies to judicial nominations is an increasingly popular trend. Heh heh. Go figure.

Way to much information to copy and paste on this blog, but have a look. Very interesting stuff.

Here is the one statistic I found very interesting and quite contrary to what has been opined up here.

President Confirmation Percentage
Truman 81.8%
Eisenhower 90.2%
Kennedy/Johnson 89.7%
Nixon/Ford 89.1%
Carter 91.8%
Reagan 81.3%
G.H.W. Bush 77.8%
Clinton 61.3%
G.W. Bush 53.0%


For clarity, what this table shows is the percentage of nominations that were received within a Congress that were confirmed by that Congress.

edit Forgot to mention, check out the one little interesting tidbit of information at the bottom of the link.

 

[NJDevil]

200/210 != 53.0% I don't know exactly how this number is computed, but I'm pretty sure those are the numbers from Bush's first term (anything but 53%).

 

[Tab]

Could someone explain to me what all these numbers mean to me?

 

[ciba]

NJDevil, note that these are Court of Appeals nominations. Your 200ish is (includes?) must include district court nominations.

 

[conjur]

Tells me that Presidents since Clinton were trying to stack the appeals court with judges more on the extreme. And, we know the new set up at the source of this whole mess are all huge pro-business (esp. pro-insurance company), anti-civil rights, pro-corporate interest, anti-abortion, etc. and some (maybe most?) are linked to GOP fund-raising and even to Rove and close associates of the Propagandist.

If the Propagandist would nominate judges who are known to be fair to both sides, we wouldn't be having this problem.

It's reasons like this why the filibuster exists.

 

[gallivanter]

Originally posted by: conjur
Tells me that Presidents since Clinton were trying to stack the appeals court with judges more on the extreme. And, we know the new set up at the source of this whole mess are all huge pro-business (esp. pro-insurance company), anti-civil rights, pro-corporate interest, anti-abortion, etc. and some (maybe most?) are linked to GOP fund-raising and even to Rove and close associates of the Propagandist.

If the Propagandist would nominate judges who are known to be fair to both sides, we wouldn't be having this problem.

It's reasons like this why the filibuster exists.

See I do learn something new here. I always thought it existed to deprive Americans from protecting themselves, as it did prior to World War I, and to deprive Black Americans their civil rights. Who knew?

I am also glad to learn that none of the previous administration's judicial nominees were considered extreme by any sizeable portion of the American populace, nor that any had any connections to any political parties or politicians.

By the way, how many of those Circuit Court or Supreme Court nominees who had majority support and came out of committee failed to receive a vote again?

 

[conjur]

Where did I say what you're trying to imply?

I know. Nowhere.


Seriously, you must be CylcoWizard posting under a new account.

 

[gallivanter]

Originally posted by: conjur
Where did I say what you're trying to imply?

I know. Nowhere.


Seriously, you must be CylcoWizard posting under a new account.

I can assure you I am no former member here.


As for the first part of my post, I was merely pointing out the illustrious history of the filibuster, much of which is extremely odious, unless anybody supports what many Democrats attempted to do to the Civil Rights Act.

As to the second portion, you stated, not implied, that Mr. Bush was only nominating "extremist" judges. My counter is that many of the nominees of the former administration were considered extremist by many many people in this country. It is a matter of perspective. This is precisely why it should not come down to ideology. Besides, if these nominees are so bad they will not be confirmed. There are more than enough liberal to moderate Republicans in the Senate to kill any truly extremist judges. Hell, your best friend on the judiciary committee over the last four years has been Senator Specter. Let them have a vote.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: gallivanter
As to the second portion, you stated, not implied, that Mr. Bush was only nominating "extremist" judges. My counter is that many of the nominees of the former administration were considered extremist by many many people in this country. It is a matter of perspective. This is precisely why it should not come down to ideology. Besides, if these nominees are so bad they will not be confirmed. There are more than enough liberal to moderate Republicans in the Senate to kill any truly extremist judges. Hell, your best friend on the judiciary committee over the last four years has been Senator Specter. Let them have a vote.

Haven't you noticed the pattern of coercion exhibited by the White House and GOP leadership in this administration? Any Senator that strays from the party line is quickly brought under the wing with threats to campaign against them, campaign agaist their family members who are running for other offices, or other sorts of arm-twisting behavior. Any nominee out of committe will likely get a party-line vote. How does that benefit this nation? Well, if "this nation" = corporate america then the benefits will be huge.

 

[Jhhnn]

Rip trots out the smoke machine.

As the radical right has gained influence in the republican party, their own choices for nominees have also been radicalized, and their opposition to mainstream candidates has increased. This culminates in the judicial workload crisis under Clinton, when Repubs blocked his nominees simply because they could, and now under Bush because their elective successes have emboldened the radical party leadership. Their picks are based almost exclusively on ideology and party loyalty, an attempt to saddle the electorate with rightwing ideology no matter the outcome of any election, to lapdog the lifetime tenured federal judiciary to the will of the monied minority.

Hell, even conservative SCOTUS justices who'd love to retire can't reconcile the act with the likely character of their successors, which speaks rather loudly to the issue...

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: NJDevil
200/210 != 53.0% I don't know exactly how this number is computed, but I'm pretty sure those are the numbers from Bush's first term (anything but 53%).

The 53% # is the circuit court figure.



200/210. You may have been led astray by the flock.

Here. Use the stats and Make up your own numbers. It seems to be the popular thing to do.

107th congress

circuit court Nominations 32 confirmations 17
district court nominations 99 confirmations 83
federal claims and international trade
nominations 7 confirmations 1


108th congress

circuit court Nominations 35 confirmations 20
district court nominations 96 confirmations 88
federal claims and international trade
nominations 7 confirmations 7


109th congress

circuit court Nominations 12 confirmations 0
district court nominations 9 confirmations 4
federal claims and international trade
nominations 0 confirmations 0

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
[Jhhnn closes eyes]

Hell, even conservative SCOTUS justices who'd love to retire can't reconcile the act with the likely character of their successors, which speaks rather loudly to the issue...

Linkage please. Heh heh...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
[Jhhnn closes eyes]

Hell, even conservative SCOTUS justices who'd love to retire can't reconcile the act with the likely character of their successors, which speaks rather loudly to the issue...

Linkage please. Heh heh...

<- considers holding breath...

Heck, I don't even need a "link" - I just want to see what quote(s) he is working off of to come to such a twisted conclusion.

CsG

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: gallivanter

Originally posted by: conjur
Seriously, you must be CylcoWizard posting under a new account.

I can assure you I am no former member here.

In other news: "Bush not a liar", Bush says!

 

[Rainsford]

Interesting. I mean it. Those stats, assuming they are real, are very interesting. Not so much because they prove the theory of obstructionist Democrats, but because they disprove it. Look at what the stats say. They seem to indicate a trend towards not simply rubber stamping the nominations. The reason for this is beyond the available information, but it's safe to say it's not just people being mean to Dubya.

I for one am happy with this trend. I don't think the President should simply have his judicial nominations rubber stamped, which has to have been what was happening with 90% rates.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Interesting. I mean it. Those stats, assuming they are real, are very interesting. Not so much because they prove the theory of obstructionist Democrats, but because they disprove it. Look at what the stats say. They seem to indicate a trend towards not simply rubber stamping the nominations. The reason for this is beyond the available information, but it's safe to say it's not just people being mean to Dubya.

I for one am happy with this trend. I don't think the President should simply have his judicial nominations rubber stamped, which has to have been what was happening with 90% rates.

Their obstruction proves they aren't obstructing?

not rubber stamping would mean some nominees would be voted down. That isn't happening - heck they aren't even getting a vote.

CsG

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Interesting. I mean it. Those stats, assuming they are real, are very interesting. Not so much because they prove the theory of obstructionist Democrats, but because they disprove it. Look at what the stats say. They seem to indicate a trend towards not simply rubber stamping the nominations. The reason for this is beyond the available information, but it's safe to say it's not just people being mean to Dubya.

I for one am happy with this trend. I don't think the President should simply have his judicial nominations rubber stamped, which has to have been what was happening with 90% rates.

Their obstruction proves they aren't obstructing?

not rubber stamping would mean some nominees would be voted down. That isn't happening - heck they aren't even getting a vote.

CsG

Uh, my point was that this theory that the Democrats specificially are doing it doesn't hold a lot of water. It's something that's been going on for a while now, yet only now is anyone making a big stink about it. This would seem to indicate that people think something new is going on, that the Democrats are doing something different. This is clearly not the case, and I felt the need to point that out.

Actually, not rubber stamping means exactly that. Putting judges up for a vote right now would mean 100% (or close) confirmations because of the behavior the Republicans have been showing. There is no way to put them up for a vote and not rubber stamp, because the rubber stamp people have voting control.

 

[Jhhnn]

My apologies, gentlemen, I overstated the bit about SCOTUS justices retiring. There is, however, a lot of under the surface chatter about it- and what else explains the current situation, with very elderly Justices sitting tight? It's not like many of them are flaming liberals, at all.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Interesting. I mean it. Those stats, assuming they are real, are very interesting. Not so much because they prove the theory of obstructionist Democrats, but because they disprove it. Look at what the stats say. They seem to indicate a trend towards not simply rubber stamping the nominations. The reason for this is beyond the available information, but it's safe to say it's not just people being mean to Dubya.

I for one am happy with this trend. I don't think the President should simply have his judicial nominations rubber stamped, which has to have been what was happening with 90% rates.

Their obstruction proves they aren't obstructing?

not rubber stamping would mean some nominees would be voted down. That isn't happening - heck they aren't even getting a vote.

CsG

Uh, my point was that this theory that the Democrats specificially are doing it doesn't hold a lot of water. It's something that's been going on for a while now, yet only now is anyone making a big stink about it. This would seem to indicate that people think something new is going on, that the Democrats are doing something different. This is clearly not the case, and I felt the need to point that out.

Actually, not rubber stamping means exactly that. Putting judges up for a vote right now would mean 100% (or close) confirmations because of the behavior the Republicans have been showing. There is no way to put them up for a vote and not rubber stamp, because the rubber stamp people have voting control.

So the Constitution stating that a consent vote is needed for Judicial nominees is "rubber stamping"?

And yes, the democrats have been doing this for a while so it's nothing "new", however they are being obstructionist no matter how you want to twist it.

CsG

 

[gallivanter]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: gallivanter

Originally posted by: conjur
Seriously, you must be CylcoWizard posting under a new account.

I can assure you I am no former member here.

In other news: "Bush not a liar", Bush says!

Do I get some kind of prize of something when all of these stupid comments are proven wrong? Just curious.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: gallivanter

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: gallivanter

Originally posted by: conjur
Seriously, you must be CylcoWizard posting under a new account.

I can assure you I am no former member here.

In other news: "Bush not a liar", Bush says!

Do I get some kind of prize of something when all of these stupid comments are proven wrong? Just curious.

Heh, nah. I'm not trying to reinforce conjur's preposterous allegation. Just saying that it sounds silly for you to even address it. One only sounds insincere when trying to address absurdities.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Interesting. I mean it. Those stats, assuming they are real, are very interesting. Not so much because they prove the theory of obstructionist Democrats, but because they disprove it. Look at what the stats say. They seem to indicate a trend towards not simply rubber stamping the nominations. The reason for this is beyond the available information, but it's safe to say it's not just people being mean to Dubya.

I for one am happy with this trend. I don't think the President should simply have his judicial nominations rubber stamped, which has to have been what was happening with 90% rates.

Their obstruction proves they aren't obstructing?

not rubber stamping would mean some nominees would be voted down. That isn't happening - heck they aren't even getting a vote.

CsG

Uh, my point was that this theory that the Democrats specificially are doing it doesn't hold a lot of water. It's something that's been going on for a while now, yet only now is anyone making a big stink about it. This would seem to indicate that people think something new is going on, that the Democrats are doing something different. This is clearly not the case, and I felt the need to point that out.

Actually, not rubber stamping means exactly that. Putting judges up for a vote right now would mean 100% (or close) confirmations because of the behavior the Republicans have been showing. There is no way to put them up for a vote and not rubber stamp, because the rubber stamp people have voting control.

So the Constitution stating that a consent vote is needed for Judicial nominees is "rubber stamping"?

And yes, the democrats have been doing this for a while so it's nothing "new", however they are being obstructionist no matter how you want to twist it.

CsG

I'm going to start over, because that is how totally you missed the point.

#1: Lower percentage of approvals is good in my book. Irregardless of how it is happening, the president should face some challenge in getting his nominations through, it is essential to the balance of power.

#2: The Republicans are, as far as I can tell, not going to do anything except approve every Bush nomination. This is bad for two reasons. The first reason is that by simply approving every nomination, you effectivly remove one of the checks in the process. Yes, the vote is still there, but it might as well not be. The Democrats are simply responding with a legal means of blocking the nomination. Call it whatever you want, the fact is that they have every right to do it.

#3: This trend of fewer approvals has been going on for a while now, especially once Clinton took office. I hardly think we can blame the current Dems, or any Dems, for the whole situation.

#4: A quick look in the dictionary reveals that the Democrats are in fact being obstructionist. Yeehaw. Having an opposition party makes the whole "one party, one mind, one rule" system a lot less fun, doesn't it?

 

[Rainsford]

By the way, I find it sort of amusing that you righties think the Dems should just stop it and let every single one of Bush's nominations go through, even though they obviously disgree with them. I guess I can admire principles, not just opinions.

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
By the way, I find it sort of amusing that you righties think the Dems should just stop it and let every single one of Bush's nominations go through, even though they obviously disgree with them. I guess I can admire principles, not just opinions.

Righties don't think that. We (loosely - I'm more of a libertarian) think that judges should get a vote. The dems should have to argue their case as to why a nominee shouldn't be approved, not just kill it in private.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: ciba

Originally posted by: Rainsford
By the way, I find it sort of amusing that you righties think the Dems should just stop it and let every single one of Bush's nominations go through, even though they obviously disgree with them. I guess I can admire principles, not just opinions.

Righties don't think that. We (loosely - I'm more of a libertarian) think that judges should get a vote. The dems should have to argue their case as to why a nominee shouldn't be approved, not just kill it in private.

Look at the Bolton / UN nomination though -- a Repbulican committee member stated he was absolutely the wrong person for the job, then voted the party line anyway.

An "up or down vote" is meaningless when the Republicans are too cowed to vote on the merits of a nominee and instead must toe the party line. With the Republican party leadership threatening to withdraw election support to anyone who shows disloyalty (and to actively support other party members instead), rubber stamping instead of informed consent is the order of the day.

Sadly, the Democrats will probably do exactly the same thing next time they are in power, and will attempt to pack the courts with extremists of their own.