The 200-Day Club

That’s how long uncontroversial nominees are waiting to join the federal bench.

 

Just how long does it take to get onto the federal bench these days? The molasses pace of the judicial confirmation process during the Obama presidency has been apparent. But now the Congressional Research Service has crunched the numbers and found clear proof that Senate Republicans are engaging in an unprecedented form of obstruction of President Obama’s judicial nominees. The Republicans are holding even the most uncontroversial nominees hostage, in an effort to leave as many seats as possible open for a future Republican president to fill. In short, the uncontroversial nominees are pawns in a fight over the future of the federal judiciary.

 

CRS defines an uncontroversial nominee as one with little or no opposition when votes are actually cast in the Senate Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor. This definition isn’t perfect, because it allows senators to manufacture a “controversy” simply by voting against a nominee, and some Republicans have now taken to voting against every Obama nominee, no matter what. But the CRS numbers are still striking.  

 

The gist is this: The average confirmation time for uncontroversial circuit court nominees rose from 64.5 days under Reagan to 227.3 days under Obama. There simply are no Obama appeals court nominees who make it through the confirmation process in 100 days or less—whereas nearly 30 percent of President George W. Bush’s nominees sped through in that amount of time. Similarly, the average waiting time for uncontroversial district court nominees increased from 69.9 days under Reagan to 204.8 days under President Obama. And the number of district court nominees who wait more than 200 days has doubled from George W.’s time to Obama’s.

 

The slowdown is bad because it surely means that some of the best judicial candidates decide not to put themselves through this stalled process. It also leaves unfilled vacancies that the judiciary has declared “emergencies” because of the heavy workload facing the sitting judges on those courts. Our federal judiciary, and the people it serves, deserve far better.

 

 

 

More from

Rule of Law
July 25, 2024

USA: ‘The framers of the constitution envisioned an accountable president, not a king above the law’

CIVICUS
CIVICUS discusses the recent US Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity and its potential impact...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Access to Justice
July 23, 2024

Bissonnette and the Future of Federal Arbitration

The Regulatory Review
Every year, there are a handful of Supreme Court cases that do not make headlines...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
July 19, 2024

US Supreme Court is making it harder to sue – even for conservatives

Reuters
July 19 (Reuters) - Over its past two terms, the U.S. Supreme Court has put an end...
By: David H. Gans, Andrew Chung
Rule of Law
July 18, 2024

RELEASE: Sixth Circuit Panel Grapples with Effect of Supreme Court’s Loper Bright Decision on Title X Regulation

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
July 17, 2024

Family Planning Fight Poised to Test Scope of Chevron Rollback

Bloomberg Law
Justices made clear prior Chevron-based decisions would stand Interpretations of ambiguous laws no longer given deference...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Mary Anne Pazanowski
Rule of Law
July 15, 2024

Not Above the Law Coalition On Judge Cannon Inappropriately Dismissing Classified Documents Case Against Trump

WASHINGTON — Today, following reports that Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against...
By: Praveen Fernandes