2014 Yielded Bumper Crop Of Judicial Confirmations

Since he's taken office, President Obama has seen more than 300 federal district and circuit judges confirmed. Eighty-nine of those confirmations happened in 2014 alone. Russ Wheeler/Brookings Institution hide caption

itoggle caption Russ Wheeler/Brookings Institution

Since he's taken office, President Obama has seen more than 300 federal judges confirmed. That puts him ahead of the last two presidents at their six-year marks. A huge chunk of Obama's confirmations happened in 2014 alone; the year after the Senate Democrats got rid of the filibuster for most judicial nominations.

To assess how that rules change might have helped things along, consider a few numbers.

In 2014, 89 judges were confirmed; that's the highest yearly total in two decades. And it's almost one-third of all of Obama's confirmations since he first took office six years ago.

Here's another figure, from Russell Wheeler at the Brookings Institution. Before 2014, about three-quarters of Obama's judicial nominees were getting confirmed. Now, that rate is more than 90 percent. That's better than either Presidents Clinton or George W. Bush did at the six-year mark.

And finally, Obama got 27 judges confirmed just during the lame-duck session alone. That's the most ever in lame duck history, said Wheeler. It made for some grumpy Senate Republicans the last days of session, like Orrin Hatch of Utah.

The Two-Way

Senate OKs Judicial Nominees, Tax Extensions Before Republican Takeover

"These type of people ought to be confirmed after the first of the year, when you have the new people here," Hatch said the last week the Senate was in session. "We've always done it that way, but Harry Reid's trying to push it over."

Actually, the majority leader had been pushing through nominees all year, methodically holding floor vote after floor vote. Democrats like Tom Harkin of Iowa say they were just making up for lost time.

"They spend two years making it harder and harder to get judges, and at the end when we've finally got them through, they say, 'Oh, you shouldn't be putting them through so fast.' Well, that's because they kept us from doing this for two years," Harkin says.

If you ask both Democrats and Republicans why 2014 yielded a bumper crop of confirmations, most will point to a Senate rules change Democrats rammed through last November, to get rid of the filibuster for most judicial nominations.

Obama's Judicial Nominees Face Slowed Confirmation Process July 22, 2012

But Wheeler points out that only a small fraction of nominees in 2014 got enough "no" votes to suggest they would've fallen victim to filibusters.

"Most of the nominees who did get confirmed oftentimes got confirmed by voice vote or with very just token opposition," Wheeler said. "So I think we have to be careful with cause and effect."

Wheeler maintains there are other reasons the president saw such a spike in confirmations lately.

Politics

Primer: Judicial Nominees and the Senate Filibuster

"I think that's due to two things. One is, he was just slow out of the box for whatever reason," he said. "The White House didn't have its act together and it's gotten its act together now. And secondly, you have this really extraordinary push on the part of Senate Democrats this last year to get as many confirmations as possible."

And legal scholars are just beginning to assess how those efforts have actually shaped the judiciary. When Obama first took office, 10 of the 13 appeals courts had more judges appointed by Republican than Democratic presidents. Now, Democratic appointees form the majority in nine of the 13 appeals courts.

And now only seven of the 179 seats on the appeals courts are vacant.

But Michael Gerhardt at the University of North Carolina School of Law says you won't see an ideologically transformed bench.

"He's not appointing extremists, I suppose one might say. Or people who fall to the extremes, let's say, to the left," Gerhardt said. "But it's not clear that President Obama ever favored appointing people extremely to the left."

What he has favored is appointing women and minorities at a higher rate than any president in history. But that started long before 2014's filibuster-free year; white males have always formed the minority of Obama nominees. He has also appointed 11 openly gay or lesbian federal judges. There was only one before 2009.

Nan Aron of the liberal advocacy group Alliance for Justice, says a diverse bench builds trust in the judicial system.

"It's important for people to have some confidence that when they step into a courtroom that there is someone there who might in fact even look like themselves hearing their cases," Aron says.

But some aspects of the confirmation process haven't seen much progress during the six years under Obama. It still takes more than 30 weeks on average to get a judge from nomination to confirmation. Back in the days of Presidents Johnson and Nixon — two arguably turbulent administrations — it took about two to three weeks.

No deaths after 6-car pileup in north Lebanon

Six children in small car survive seaside dive

Motorists on Tripoli’s Qalamoun coastal highway were shocked Tuesday morning to find that a small red car carrying six...

Heavy snowstorm to hit Lebanon this week

When Lebanon gives you lemons...

The art of selling is inbred in some people. On the road from Sidon to Tyre in the south of the country, an orange...

Karami remembered as true statesman

BEIRUT: Prime Minister Tammam Salam offered his condolences Thursday for the passing of two-time former Prime Minister Omar Karami, describing him as a true political leader who always sought to protect Lebanon and its coexistence.

“With the passing of Omar Karami, the son of the champion of independence Abdul-Hamid Karami and the brother of the martyr Rashid Karami, his family, Tripoli and Lebanon lost a humanitarian and national value and a wise voice that Lebanon needed the most in its troubled times,” Salam said in a statement.

“Karami recognized the meaning of Lebanon and the importance of preserving coexistence. He has always held the flag of moderation.”

Salam praised Karami for "always placing national interest above all,” supporting dialogue and deploring extremism and tensions.

Omar Karami died Thursday morning from a long illness at the age of 80. He served as prime minister, twice most notably in 2005, a turning point for Lebanon’s modern history.

Karami was prime minister when Rafik Hariri was killed in an explosion on Feb. 14, 2005. Karami resigned days later following mass demonstrations and accusations that his government was implicitly involved in the killing.

Former Prime Minister Najib Mikati also offered his condolences to the Karami family, saying despite rivalry between him and Karami, the two had always had respect for each other.

“It is hard for me to announce the death of a great man from my country, my town and a man who contributed to Lebanon's independence,” Mikati, who served as prime minister between 2011 and 2013, said in a statement.

“A man who understood well the rivalry in politics. ... He was a unique model in Lebanese politics. He was a school of thought; honest in his feelings, committed to what is right, to his city, to his country, making his political path sharp and rich.”

Lebanon's Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdel-Latif Derian said Lebanon lost "a notable man and a pillar of political work, who hailed from a prestigious Tripoli family."

“[Karami] had always risen above personal gains for the sake of Lebanon's unity and civil peace. He preserved the unity of Muslims and Lebanese under the umbrella of Dar a-Fatwa and worked relentlessly to serve his country,” Derian said.

"He was a statesman par excellence and a role model who used wisdom and courage to resolve Lebanese issues at the most difficult times.”

Karami is the son of Abdul-Hamid Karami, one of the most prominent figures in Lebanon's history, who played a critical role in achieving the country's independence in 1943. Abdul-Hamid Karami served as prime minister in 1945, becoming a leading figure in Lebanon’s political arena. His sons, Omar and Rashid, carried on their father's legacy and became involved in politics.

UNIFIL condemns 'aggressive conduct' by south Lebanon residents

BEIRUT: UNIFIL condemned Thursday what it described as the aggressive conduct of some residents in south Lebanon when they intercepted two vehicles belonging to the peacekeeping force the day before.

“UNIFIL condemns this aggressive conduct of some civilians towards peacekeepers, which is contrary to the spirit of UNIFIL’s relationship with the people of south Lebanon who have always demonstrated strong support to the mission,” UNIFIL said in a statement.

While insisting that the situation remained calm in its area of operations, the peacekeeping force said it was investigating the incident with the Lebanese Army.

“UNIFIL remains focused on its operations in close coordination with LAF, to maintain calm and stability in southern Lebanon, and UNIFIL’s freedom of movement is critical for the success of this endeavor.”

A security source told The Daily Star Wednesday that the residents were angered that the Ghana contingent was taking pictures of the area.

UNIFIL said some residents in the Ramyah village blocked the road with motorbikes and vehicles, obstructing the movement of a UNIFIL patrol unit Wednesday afternoon. The residents prevented a backup UNIFIL unit, which responded to the location, from approaching the area by blocking the road with vehicles.

“During the standoff, the civilians, some of whom were carrying knives and small firearms, were aggressive towards the peacekeepers and tried to forcibly enter UNIFIL vehicles and snatch equipment,” the statement.

The incident prompted peacekeepers to undertake “a very controlled response by firing a warning shot in the air,” which dispersed the crowd.

UNIFIL denied that one of its peacekeepers was wounded in a reported fistfight.

Advertisement

Berri: Hezbollah-Future talks only good thing about 2014

BEIRUT: The dialogue between Hezbollah and Future is the only good development Lebanon witnessed in 2014, Speaker Nabih Berri said in remarks published Thursday, adding that he sought to preserve the current government amid the prolonged presidential paralysis.

“If there is anything good about 2014, it is the launch of this dialogue,” Berri told reporters in a gathering for local media, according to Al-Hayat.

“Both the Future Movement and Hezbollah were very keen on cooperating with each other [during the first dialogue session] and it was noteworthy the support such a dialogue received locally from both the March 8 and 14 [coalitions] as well as internationally.”

Berri sponsored a much-needed dialogue session between rivals the Future Movement and Hezbollah earlier this month to defuse rising sectarian tensions as a result of the crisis in neighboring Syria. The dialogue is also set to find a mechanism to end the presidential vacuum.

“It is supposed to create an environment that could resolve other disputes,” Berri said. "Israel is syphoning our oil resources while we are not even working in our institutions. Lebanon is some $66 billion in debt, which is the core of the problem. The sectarian tensions are not about a dispute between religions, but rather poverty is the most important element that takes such a sectarian turn."

Berri, who has been speaker of Parliament since 1992, blamed MPs for paralyzing the body's work.

“For the past two years, we weren't able to pass any laws. Was it Parliament's fault or the absence of a government and the result of some unconstitutional fatwas by some MPs?” Berri said.

He was referring to a boycott by most lawmakers against attending Parliament sessions except for urgent draft laws, arguing that the branch should not function normally in the absence of a president.

He also said there were 33 laws passed by Parliament that Cabinets including the current one had not yet begun implementing, saying he formed a committee to follow up on the implementation.

Asked why the Parliament never held Cabinets accountable for failure to implement pressing laws, Berri said he sought to preserve the livelihood of the current Cabinet as much as possible amid a presidential paralysis.

“This Cabinet is not responsible for such a matter. Even if it was responsible for failure to implement laws, I want to preserve, as much as I can, this Cabinet amid the presidential vacuum. It is part of this country's unity.”

"Unfortunately, we now have 24 presidents and 24 prime ministers. If we want to hold one of them accountable, that would imply threatening the entire government.”

6 Reasons Steve Scalise Will Survive His Speech Scandal

i i

Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., speaks during a campaign rally for U.S. Senate candidate Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-La., on Nov. 1 in Abita Springs, La. Scott Threlkeld/AP hide caption

itoggle caption Scott Threlkeld/AP

Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., speaks during a campaign rally for U.S. Senate candidate Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-La., on Nov. 1 in Abita Springs, La.

Scott Threlkeld/AP

Barring new and jarring developments, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise is going to survive the story that he addressed a conference of white supremacists in 2002.

Unless further evidence emerges of liaisons with the European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), Scalise will take his oath next week for the 114^th Congress as the Number Three leader of the chamber's GOP – the party's largest majority since 1928.

That was the message tucked into the bouquet of supporting statements Scalise received Tuesday from Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and other prominent Republicans.

Yes, Scalise had to grovel a bit, apologizing for the long-buried episode and denouncing the forbidden audience at issue and its anti-minority, anti-Semitic views. But with that out of the way, the Speaker absolved him of further responsibility for this "mistake."

Scolded and scalded, Scalise was still standing.

Suffice it to say that the whip's protestations of innocence about EURO and its views have strained credulity, both in Washington and in Louisiana. EURO was co-founded in the 1990s by David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan leader and American Nazi. Duke at that time had run for governor and for the U.S. Senate as an insurgent Republican, doing well enough in both cases to distress the national GOP and attract news attention from around the world.

In his moment, Duke was a national figure and an absolute hero to some in Louisiana. Everything he did drew local notice, especially in the white suburbs of New Orleans where he had actually won majorities in his statewide contests. Scalise represented some of this very same territory in the state legislature, and while he was not a Duke supporter, he had shown active interest in the votes of those who were.

Duke himself has said Scalise was invited to that 2002 EURO convention by people they both knew. Even conservative firebrand Erick Erickson at RedState.com weighed in, asking: "How the hell does somebody show up at a David Duke organized event in 2002 and claim ignorance?"

No one has quite answered that question, including Scalise.

So why was he treated with kid gloves?

Here are six reasons Scalise will survive this firestorm:

• The backing from key people of color in Louisiana. Gov. Bobby Jindal, son of immigrants from India, was among the first to speak up on Scalise's behalf. Even more important was the testimony of Rep. Cedric L. Richmond, the African-American Democrat who represents the congressional district based in New Orleans. "Steve doesn't have a racist bone in his body," said Richmond, using what was once a favorite line of Ronald Reagan. Richmond's urban 2^nd District lies cheek by jowl beside Scalise's suburban-exurban 1^st, and the two are mirror reversals of race: nearly two-thirds of Richmond's constituents are black, more than three-fourths of Scalise's are white. The racial divide is more lopsided here than anywhere else in Louisiana. But as it happens, Richmond and Scalise have been friends since they served together in the legislature through most of the last decade. This was the hour when Scalise needed a friend, and Richmond was there.


• The politics of leadership in the House. Boehner's team can survive its lack of diversity in race and gender, but it must have balance in terms of geography and ideology. Scalise is in the leadership in large part because he is from the Deep South, which is the richest vein of Republican voting in the country. Nearly half the Republican majority now hails from Southern states. Scalise is also in the leadership because, as former chairman of the Republican Study Committee, he can speak to the hard core of conservatism at the heart of his party's majority.


• The mechanics of choosing leaders in Congress. Replacing a leader in either chamber in either party is easier said than done. Boehner is not empowered to remove Scalise. Only a caucus vote among all the members of the Republican majority could do that. And for Boehner to push for such a showdown might imperil his own sometimes tenuous job security. In the past, other Speakers have tolerated offensive behavior on the part of their junior officers rather than seek a confrontation in the caucus.


• The passage of time. While Duke was once a very big deal, he peaked a generation ago. Nowadays, most Americans may well ask "David who?" Scalise did not invoke the "youthful indiscretion" defense, but the fact that this speech happened a dozen years ago, when he was a junior legislator scuffling for attention, makes a difference. Consider this: If Scalise had addressed this group last week or even last year, the story's impact would have been far greater and probably fatal to his career.


• The absence of an alpha authority figure in the GOP. There is no one in the party right now who could step in and sweep all else aside, as President George W. Bush did in an analogous situation in 2002. Right after the midterm elections, Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi was set to become Senate majority leader, but at a 100^th birthday party for Sen. Strom Thurmond, Lott said some nice things about the South Carolinian's segregationist campaign for president in 1948. Media reports and ensuing controversy seemed contained until Bush went after Lott in a speech to a black audience. Within days, support for Lott had collapsed, and the leader's laurels were passed to another senator whom the White House preferred.


• The nature of Scalise's detractors. As soon as the Scalise story broke on Monday many Democrats and liberal commentators urged the Louisianan to leave the leadership or resign from Congress. The editorial board of the Chicago Tribune joined the chorus. Peter Wehner, once an aide to President George W. Bush and often a critic of his party, said Scalise would be "acidic" in the leadership and weaken efforts to reach out to minority voters. But in another example of the jujitsu effect in politics, the line-up of those denouncing Scalise served to harden the resolve of his defenders. Scalise's friends are not about to let the media or Peter Wehner or any other party mavericks tell them who their leaders should be.