Benched! Keeping Credit 
Where Credit is Due

January 13, 2015

A little over a week into the new Congress, and Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has already begun laying the groundwork to limit the number of President Obama’s judicial nominees the Senate will confirm.

As we detailed earlier this week, presidents have historically continued filling judicial vacancies even with an opposition Senate in their final two years of office. On average, 20 percent of a president’s total judicial confirmations—which would be 76 judges for President Obama—are confirmed in the final two years of office.

The Senate has not yet confirmed any nominees this year. Nonetheless, in a recent article, a Grassley spokeswoman said that the Senator has already started tallying his confirmations for the 114th Congress, presumably to limit the number of additional nominees the Senate will confirm.

Under Grassley’s version of new math,  the current Senate has already confirmed 11 judges.  Grassley counts these judges even though they were reported out of committee and confirmed not in the current Senate, the one in which Republicans are in the majority, but by the last Senate during its “lame duck” session.

Of course,  these confirmations were not the accomplishments of Senator Grassley or Senate Republicans. In fact, Senator Grassley delayed the confirmations for which he now seeks credit and opposed confirming any nominees reported out of committee during the lame duck session. Senate Republicans even blocked their own states’ nominees and forced Democratic leadership to file cloture motions on uncontroversial judges, all while many argued that confirmations should be shut down entirely during the lame duck.

Manipulating confirmation numbers and claiming credit where it isn’t due does nothing to fill the 44 current judicial vacancies and many more (25 already announced) that will open in 2015. It does nothing for people living in Pennsylvania and Texas, where numerous, longstanding vacancies and rising caseloads have left individuals waiting in line for justice.

Iowa’s largest newspaper has called on Senator Grassley to end obstructionist policies and confirm qualified judges to the bench, and Grassley himself has promised to hold hearings soon on pending nominees. We hope he chooses to do so.

AFJ: Reported agreement on Obama nominees "an important step forward"

               Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron released the following statement today in response to media reports of an agreement concerning seven of President Obama’s executive branch nominations:

                The agreement, as described in media accounts, is an important step forward for the United States Senate and for the American people whose interests are served when government functions.  But it is not the end of the story.  There will be more legislation, more executive nominations and judicial nominees upon which the Senate will need to act over the next several months.  We hope the spirit of this agreement carries over to that business as well.  But if it does not, all options remain on the table for allowing the Senate to evolve in ways that make it a more effective institution.

              Today’s events demonstrate what can happen when a strong, unified, principled stand is taken against obstruction and dysfunction, and we will work hard to ensure that this same sense of purpose and firm resolve will be present when judicial nominations and vital legislation make their way to the Senate floor in the coming months.

            If this agreement fails to cure the culture of obstruction, we will fight for the reforms necessary to end the paralyzing gridlock that has characterized the Senate over the last several months.
 
         

At hearing for ATF nominee, more Republican obstruction

On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a high-profile hearing on President Obama’s nominee to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, B. Todd Jones.    Jones is an exceptionally qualified nominee.  He currently serves as both the acting director of ATF and as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota (a position for which he was unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee in 2009).

B. Todd Jones

Though ATF plays a critical law enforcement role, including involvement in investigating tragedies like the Sandy Hook school shootings, the Boston Marathon bombing, and the industrial explosion in West, Texas, the agency has not had a permanent director since 2006 – that’s when the law was changed to require Senate confirmation That sad reality may continue, as Republican questions at the  hearing suggest that they may continue to obstruct executive nominees as a way to prevent agencies they don’t like from functioning.

Many Republican questions raised tangential concerns about Jones’s record.  For instance, the Committee’s ranking member, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)—yes, the very same senator who wants to get rid of three judicial seats on the second most important court in the country, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals—pressed Jones to answer for a botched ATF operation, Fast and Furious.  But Jones  actually was brought in to clean up after the fact.

Moreover, just before the hearing ended, there was a telling exchange between Grassley and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).  Sen. Grassley requested that the hearing record remain open for longer than the normal one week period, based on the expectation that  there were “a lot of things that could come up.”  Senator Klobuchar agreed to keep it open for two weeks.  Sensing dissatisfaction in Grassley’s reaction, she asked, “What would you like?”  Senator Grassley responded, “Until we get done with this whole [thing].”  While the senators’ quick negotiation seemed to be good-spirited, it sounds like  Sen. Grassley has no interest in quickly moving Jones’s nomination to the Senate floor.  This stonewalling is particularly hypocritical in light of repeated Republican statements that we don’t need new gun laws, we just need to “enforce the laws on the books.”  

Of course, Jones is just one of a slew of highly qualified Obama nominees that Republicans so farhave refused to confirm because they disapprove of the organization itself (see EPA Administrator nominee Gina McCarthy, CFPB director nominee Richard Cordray, Labor Secretary nominee Tom Perez, and three NLRB nominees.  If Republicans continue to hold agencies hostage by unfairly blocking confirmations, the Senate majority should revisit reforming Senate rules.

Making History: President Obama's Female Judicial Nominees

From AFJ's new report

        President Obama has named a greater percentage of women to federal judgeships than any other president in American history – in fact, no other president comes close.

That fact is just one of the statistics in a new report from Alliance for Justice documenting the president’s outstanding record when it comes to naming women to the federal bench.

Color-coded maps dramatically illustrate the states where President Obama named the first woman to a federal district court or circuit court of appeals.  The report also includes pictures and notable “firsts” for each judge.

One of the judges in the
report: Morgan Christen,
first female circuit
judge in Alaska

“This administration deserves credit for working to create a federal judiciary that more closely reflects the richness and diversity of the American people,” said AFJ President Nan Aron.

Among the other notable facts in AFJ’s report:

        ● President Obama is the first President to appoint two women to the Supreme Court.  Because of those appointees, three women sit on the Supreme Court for the first time in its history.

        ● Forty-two percent (42%) of President Obama’s appointees have been women – a rate almost double that of President George W. Bush (22%) and almost fifty percent greater than that of President Clinton (29%).

        ● President Obama already has appointed more female federal judges than President George W. Bush did in his entire presidency (80 to 71).

        ● President Obama already has appointed more minority women judges (33) than President George W. Bush (22) or President Clinton (23).

        ● President Obama has quintupled the number of Asian Pacific American woman Article III judges in history (from 2 to 10).

        The report is the first in a projected series.  Future reports will document the president’s record on naming African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Pacific Americans, and LGBT people to the federal bench, as well as the professional diversity of his judicial appointees.

This Week in History: Republicans use threat of "nuclear option" to confirm conservative judges to D.C. Circuit and other appellate courts

Over the past week, a chorus of congressional Republicans has criticized President Obama for fulfilling his constitutional duty to nominate qualified individuals for the three open seats on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the second-highest court in the land.  Eight years ago this week, they were singing a far different tune.

On May 23, 2005, the so-called Senate “Gang of 14” agreement set the stage for up-or-down votes on a number of extremely conservative Republican judicial nominees. That agreement paid almost immediate dividends for a slate of conservative judges, particularly during this week in 2005.

On June 8, 2005, the Senate confirmed Janice Rogers Brown – who once referred to the onset of the New Deal as the “triumph of our own socialist revolution” – to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The next day, the Senate confirmed William Pryor to the 11th Circuit; among other things, Pryor had defended Alabama’s power to execute juveniles and the mentally retarded as the state’s Attorney General. Less than a week later, on June 14, the Senate confirmed Thomas Griffith to the D.C. Circuit. In all, five circuit court judges were confirmed within a week, two of whom still sit on our nation’s second most important court – the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Today, Republicans have engaged in all manner of obstructionism to prevent President Obama’s highly qualified and diverse judicial nominees from ever taking the bench. Nowhere is this more apparent than the D.C. Circuit. Caitlin Halligan was filibustered twice before asking the President to withdraw her nomination, even after she received the American Bar Association’s highest possible rating of unanimously well qualified.
Sri Srinivasan waited nearly a year before he was unanimously confirmed to the D.C. Circuit last month.

Now, Republicans have pushed forward a bill to reduce the size of the D.C. Circuit by three seats, seeking to deny President Obama any opportunity to install judges with a clear respect for the rule of law on a court that is currently dominated by radical conservatives.  Although the confirmations of Janice Rogers Brown and Thomas Griffith brought the D.C. Circuit’s membership to 11 judges, Republicans have apparently decided that with President Obama in office, eight is enough.

President Obama has nominated three highly qualified, uncontroversial nominees to the D.C. Circuit. At the same moment in President George W. Bush’s second term, facing a lower court workload, Republicans threatened to change the rules in order to fill all 11 seats on the D.C. Circuit. While the nominees put forward by President Bush were hyper-partisan, President Obama’s nominees have a clear record of exceptional qualifications and should be swiftly confirmed.

AFJ: There is no excuse for delaying Obama D.C. Circuit nominees

Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron issued the following statement today concerning President Obama’s nominations of Patricia Ann Millett, Cornelia Pillard and Robert Wilkins to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit:

Nan Aron

We applaud President Obama for nominating supremely qualified individuals to the three vacancies on the D.C. Circuit, the nation’s second most important court, and we commend him for sending a bold, public signal that these nominees are a top priority.   These choices also reflect the president’s outstanding record for increasing diversity on the federal bench.  We were pleased to stand with the President at today’s announcement, and we are pleased to stand with him in his effort to fill these seats.  Now Senators must fulfill their constitutional duty by swiftly reviewing and voting yes or no on these nominations.

There is no excuse for delay.  The D.C. Circuit decides cases that affect every aspect of all Americans’ lives, from the air we breathe to workplace safety to the health of our families to the ability to regulate financial institutions.  This court needs to be at full strength in order to manage its critically important caseload, the unique nature of which may well affect the ability of the government to serve the public interest.

 With stakes this high, we are prepared to join with President Obama as he champions the effort to ensure that the Senate fulfills its constitutional obligation to fill the circuit’s ninth, 10th and 11th seats without delay — just as it did during President George W. Bush’s administration.  There has never been a more important time for all who care about the future of our country to mobilize against the destructive tactics of obstruction that have wounded our courts and damaged public confidence in our democratic institutions.

●Read Nan Aron’s column about the D.C. Circuit in The Huffington Post.
●Watch Nan Aron discuss the D.C. Circuit with Melissa Harris Perry on MSNBC
●Read more about the D.C. Circuit.

Senators Grassley and McConnell Make Misleading Statements about Judicial Confirmations

Prior to the Senate's long-overdue confirmation of Third Circuit nominee Patty Shwartz (who waited 550 days for a vote), Senator Grassley (R-IA), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, made misleading statements about confirmations of judicial nominees.

Senator Grassley

Specifically, he cherry-picked the time period for confirmations in an attempt to evade the fact that President Obama has had far fewer judges confirmed than President George W. Bush at a comparable point in his presidency. He said:

"Today the Senate will consider the 10th judicial nomination this year. . . . At this point in 2005, and that was the beginning of President Bush’s second term, comparable for what we’re talking about for President Obama, the Senate had confirmed zero judicial nominees. Let me repeat, at this point in 2005, the Senate had confirmed not 10 , not 4, not even 1 judicial nominee, so that comes out to be zero."

Minority Leader McConnell

Following the vote, Minority Leader McConnell (R-KY) repeated the statement almost verbatim:

"We just today confirmed the 10th judicial nomination of President Obama's second term. Today. The 10th judicial nomination of President Obama's second term. At this point in President Bush's second term, he got zero judges. None."

Ten confirmations compared with zero confirmations sounds bad. But 202 confirmations compared with 181 confirmations sounds even worse—and that's the actual number of Bush and Obama confirmations at a comparable point in their presidencies. That comes out to 21 fewer confirmations for Obama.

Grassley and McConnell’s larger point about fairness would be even stronger if the Senate had confirmed 96% of President Obama’s district court nominees—the percentage of President Bush’s district court nominees who had been confirmed at a comparable point. Instead, the Senate’s confirmed only 85% of President Obama’s nominees. Had Grassley, McConnell, and their colleagues allowed Obama to match Bush’s record on this front, the Senate would have confirmed another 19 judges, making the two presidents’ overall confirmation numbers almost exactly even.

As it happens, there are exactly 19 district court nominees pending in the Senate right now. Unfortunately, Republicans have delayed the 13 nominees on the Senate floor, who have been waiting for over a month, and 6 nominees who are pending in committee. Given the Senators’ evident concern with fairness, you would think that they would at least allow immediate votes for the 13 nominees pending on the floor, all but one of whom were reported out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously. You would think.

Lilly Ledbetter on equal pay for equal work – and the work still to be done

Lilly Ledbetter and President Obama at the signing of the
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act four years ago today.

Four years ago today, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.  The law undid some of the damage caused by the notorious Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Had Congress not acted, the decision would have made it vastly more difficult for women to sue when they are denied equal pay.

Alliance for Justice first told the story of Lilly Ledbetter in our 2007 First Monday video Supreme Injustices. The video describes how the court ruled that Ledbetter could sue only during the 180 days after the discrimination began – which would have been impossible since it was years before she first discovered the discrimination:

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act changed that. 

But more is needed.  Employers still can bar employees from discussing their wages – and retaliate against workers who do.  Obviously, you can’t sue for wage discrimination if you don’t know you’re being paid less than another employee for the same work.  In addition, an employee who wins can receive back pay, but no compensatory or punitive damages.

Alliance for Justice is part of a coalition of organizations working to change that.  We support

The Paycheck Fairness Act.  It passed the House of Representatives and had the support of a majority of senators - but not the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster.

Still, President Obama can take some action on his own.  The Coalition is urging him to issue an executive order banning contractors who do business with the federal government from retaliating against workers who discuss their own pay.

UPDATE: It's becoming increasingly rare for Congress to do what it did in the Ledbetter case - pass a law effectively overriding a Supreme Court decision.  Richard Hasen analyzes the reasons in this post on SCOTUSblog

As the second term begins ...

In 2006, two years before he ran for president, then-Senator Barack Obama sat down with Alliance for Justice for an interview.  It was part of our First Monday documentary, "Quiet Revolution."  Now, as President Obama begins for his second term, we present excerpts from that interview:

The entire documentary is available here.

President Obama offers good first steps toward curbing gun violence

UPDATED, 4:00PM: President Obama announced some sound, sensible first steps to control gun violence today.  Groups supporting gun control are enthusiastic about the President's proposals, which now are available, along with background material on the White House website.  This is, of course, an issue AFJ has been concerned about for more than a decade.  We began producing documentaries on the issue in 2000: 

America up in Arms (2000):

Deadly Business (2001):

And since the Newtown tragedy we've been using this Blog to share the views of experts and pull together resources for turning grief into action.  We've grouped those posts here.

There is more perspective from Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center, an AFJ member.  He writes in The Huffington Post that while we all know about the fanatical behavior of the National Rifle Association, the gun industry's trade association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation also has responded to the Newtown tragedy in a manner best described as appalling.

Thank you, Mr. President: AFJ Praises Obama judicial nominees

Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron issued the following statement today in response to President Obama’s announcement of  seven nominees for federal district courts and a nominee for the United States Court of International Trade:

We are pleased that, so soon after re-election, President Obama appears to be making it a top priority to fill longstanding vacancies on the federal courts. 

President Obama says that these nominees "have demonstrated the talent, expertise, and fair-mindedness Americans expect and deserve from their judicial system.  They also represent my continued commitment to ensure that the judiciary resembles the nation it serves."

We agree.  These nominations continue the president’s exemplary record when it comes to diversity in gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation  – the best record of any president (for details, see AFJ’s Judicial Selection Snapshot).   In addition, we are pleased that two of the nominees come from professional backgrounds that include service to everyday Americans and reflect the full diversity of the legal profession.   Raymond Moore, nominated for the District of Colorado, is the chief public defender for federal cases in Colorado and Wyoming, and Judge Will Thomas, nominated for the Southern District of Florida is a former public defender.

Meanwhile, 19 other nominees, already put forward by the president and approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, await action by the full Senate during the current lame-duck session.   This at a time when there are scores of vacancies on the federal bench.  There is much truth to the cliché that justice delayed is justice denied.  These nominations bring thousands of Americans a step closer to justice.

The Senate should vote, now, to confirm those nominees.  Please click here to tell your Senator to do just that.

AFJ's second term agenda

We are extraordinarily pleased that Barack Obama has been re-elected president of the United States, and we extend to the President our congratulations on his victory.

This is an important moment for our country, Alliance for Justice, and our friends throughout the progressive community, as we unite to accelerate our efforts to foster a fair, just, and free America.

We want you to know that Alliance for Justice is ready and eager to play an active, assertive, and constructive role during the second Obama administration. The president has set ambitious goals for his next four years. And so have we.

Read about our second term agenda at www.afj.org

Florida District Court Judge Allows Suit Against the Health-Care Law to Continue

Today, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that the lawsuit seeking to overturn healthcare reform can proceed. Led by Florida and joined by 19 other U.S. states, the suit against reform claims that the law is unconstitutional because it requires citizens to obtain coverage, among other issues. For everyone who worked in the progressive community to ensure that healthcare legislation passed, let this be a warning that Conservatives will do everything in their power to overturn the legislation, and that their decades' long efforts to pack the federal judiciary with right-wing conservatives who favor corporate interests over the American people will aid them in their effort.

This case is headed to the Supreme Court, which has demonstrated a strong bias toward big business. Progressives need to learn what conservatives have known for decades - the courts matter. With President Obama's nominees for federal judgeships currently stalled in the Senate, the risks to the progressive agenda grow on a daily basis. The Senate needs to act and confirm judges who will stand for equal justice for all, not just the powerful.

Ashby Jones with the Wall Street Journal has an extensive run-down of the case which will be heard on December 16th.

Where Rights Went Wrong

This morning on the last day of the America’s Future Now conference AFJ President Nan Aron moderated the panel, Where RIghts Went Wrong: What Happened to the Rights Revolution?. Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund, spoke about the frustrating lack of progress concerning LGBT rights on many fronts including marriage, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, while highlighting areas where the movement has been able to make headway. Kierra Johnson, Executive Director of Choice USA similarly talked about lack of progress in many areas, but also opportunities for change, particularly on the ground in the states.

Adam Luna, who coordinates the America’s Voice strategy spoke about the frustrating lack of progress concerning immigrant rights, particularly the Dream Act, but he echoed the sentiments of other speakers that the progressive community as a whole is doing a better job of coming together to work on issues.

Anthony D. Romero took a different tack during his talk, bluntly stating “I'm disgusted with this president.” While Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU, has been frustrated with the lack of legislative progress under this administration, his disgust is due to the “meltdown of due process” that has resulted from the lack of accountability for, and change to, the policies of torture during the Bush administration.

Although, much of the discussion contained some frustration with the Obama Administration, there was general agreement that the Rights Revolution cannot rely solely on our elected officials, but must act as a grassroots movement to effect change and transform the culture in this country.

Stevens Leaves Large Shoes to Fill

Justice Stevens’s announcement Friday that he will retire at the end of this term provides President Obama the rare opportunity to appoint two Supreme Court justices within his first term. Replacing Justice Stevens also presents the President with a great responsibility: filling the very large shoes left by a justice with a 35-year legacy of defending the personal freedoms and human dignity of everyday Americans. At the end of this term, the Court will lose not just an eloquent and outspoken defender of civil liberties, separation of powers, and access to justice, but also a master tactician who has often played a central role in forging coalitions on split decisions. Justice Stevens has often garnered the swing votes of other justices to join his defense of civil rights, environmental protections, and judicial oversight of executive power.

Justice Stevens’s retirement could not come at a more crucial time. Recent decisions of the Court in cases such as Citizens United are evidence of the Court’s increasingly pro-business agenda. Not shy about its lack of respect for precedent or its willingness to abandon principles of fundamental fairness, the Roberts Court has rewritten decades of law in order to protect powerful corporate interests at the expense of everyday Americans.

Without Justice Stevens’s strong, clear voice preserving the Constitution, personal freedoms, and separation of powers, the Court is all the more likely to move painfully and irrevocably rightward and away from the mainstream. The selection of Justice Stevens’s successor must not be rushed, or fall victim to partisan posturing. Americans deserve a fair and impartial justice who has a brilliant legal mind and is committed to defending the Constitution The President should pause, reflect, and carefully select a Justice who will stand up for everyday citizens, uphold core constitutional values, and promote equal justice for all, not just the powerful few. The Senate must look beyond politics and quickly confirm a qualified nominee. To do otherwise is to do a great disservice to the American people. We have lost too great a Justice; the stakes are simply too high.

The Roberts Court is Out of Touch With the American People

Earlier this week, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. told law students in Alabama that Obama's criticism of the court during the State of the Union address was "very troubling." Roberts’ criticism of President Obama’s State of the Union speech shows just how out of touch the conservative majority on the Court has become. In his annual speech before Congress, the President attacked the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in which a narrow 5-4 majority radically transformed campaign finance laws. The ruling grants corporations the ability to spend unlimited amounts to influence the outcome of elections. Troubling, indeed.

Roberts was upset that the Justices had to “sit there expressionless” while the “members of [the elected legislature were] standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering.” Justice Alito’s furtive “not true” comment aside, perhaps the Chief Justice felt so disturbed because the court rarely has to confront the ire of those its decisions affect.

But Citizens United has served as a rallying cry. As Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) noted in a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, people are “freaking out” because the Court’s conservative 5-4 majority is transforming the legal framework in America to further a pro-business agenda. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that 80% of Americans oppose the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. At a time when average Americans are struggling to survive economically, opening the floodgates to corporate campaign expenditures smacks of insensitivity and ignorance to the plight of ordinary people.

We applaud the President for reprimanding the court and giving voice to the frustration felt by so many Americans in the wake of Citizens United. Harry Reid also joined the fray on Wednesday criticizing the Court for being out of touch and engaging in “activism”, asking us to rethink who we put on the bench.

As we’ve said before, this decision should serve as a wake-up call to progressives who have allowed judicial nominations to sit on the back burner while conservatives pack the court, and to the administration, which has not treated judicial nominations as a top priority. President Obama should step up his commitment to nominating wise young judges who can change the jurisprudential conversation -- and progressives need look no further than Citizens United to see what happens if we don't pay attention to judicial selection and work to help confirm those nominees who will uphold our core constitutional values.

American Idle: Republican Obstructionism Delays Justice

After the State of the Union when President Obama criticized Republican Senators for obstructionism, saying “The confirmation of well-qualified public servants should not be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual Senators.” We have decided to start a new series titled “American Idle” chronicling the nominees who have been or are currently being held hostage in the Senate.

On Wednesday, Alliance for Justice blasted Senate Republicans for holding hostage a highly qualified and uncontroversial nominee. Unopposed in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Joseph Greenaway was nominated by President Obama to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal on June 19, 2009. A "hold" has been placed on his nomination.

Before his appointment to the United States District Court in New Jersey by President Clinton in 1995, Greenaway served as a litigator, prosecutor and in-house counsel. While on the federal bench, Judge Greenaway amassed a record and a reputation for taking the facts of each case one by one, without professing allegiance to a larger interpretational framework or ideology, and a willingness to both examine the nuances of individual cases and engage larger constitutional issues.

If confirmed, Judge Greenaway would be only the 15th judge confirmed since the beginning of this Congress.

Although President Obama has nominated highly qualified attorneys and judges to the federal bench, Republicans have consistently responded by either delaying the votes or outright attacking individual nominees. Republican senators have threatened filibusters or used the practice of putting a “hold” on a nominee to prevent up-or-down votes from taking place.

To his credit, Senator Leahy (D-VT), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has held prompt hearings on all of President Obama’s nominees. But, as a result of abandoning the tradition of challenging only highly controversial nominations, Republicans indefinitely blocked votes on the floor even though many nominees were reported out of committee months earlier. Complicating matters further, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), struggled to find the floor time needed to overcome filibuster threats, which take an entire day of Senate floor time, while the Chamber was mired in health care reform.

By the end of December, the Senate had voted on only 13 nominees. By comparison, in President George W. Bush’s first 17 months, the Democratically-controlled Senate, with Senator Leahy chairing the Judiciary Committee, confirmed 100 nominees.

Republicans are abusing Senate rules and are again putting politics ahead of placing qualified judges who will uphold our constitutional values on our nation's courts. It is time for Republicans to put the needs of Americans above their partisan politics, their hypocrisy has already delayed justice for too long.

Still Time for Movement on Judges

This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on two judicial nominees, Judges Alberto Diaz and James A. Wynn, Jr. both nominated to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The committee decided to wait until Christmas Eve to vote on the nomination of Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

As of today, the Senate has confirmed 11 federal judges, including Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. By December 17, in the first years of both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations each had 27 federal judges confirmed.

We have previously pointed out the slow pace of judicial selection in the first year of the Obama administration. Not much has changed since then.

There is still time before the recess for the Senate to vote on the nominations that have cleared the Judiciary Committee. Yesterday, Senator Leahy (D-VT) called on his colleagues to vote on these nominees:

“I hope Senate Republicans will lift their objections, and allow us to proceed on the 27 nominations reported by the Judiciary Committee. Absent cooperation to confirm nominations, this Congress will be recorded in history as one of the least productive in the confirmation of judicial nominations. I hope the New Year will bring a renewed spirit of cooperation.”

The president must nominate and the Senate must confirm judges who will be strong voices for upholding the Constitution and the law to provide equal justice and protect personal freedoms for everyone in America.

No Immunity for Torture on Human Rights Day

Today we mark the 61st Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with International Human Rights Day. Earlier today, President Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in Norway. In his acceptance speech he restated his belief in the U.S. as a standard bearer when it comes to human rights:

“That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.”

Yet the Obama Administration has been unwilling to do the hard work of holding those who authorized torture during the Bush administration accountable. We cannot be a beacon of human rights in the world when we act against our own laws and values. We have to work hard to restore America’s place in the world, and that includes being willing to confront the actions of those who authorized torture and investigate how those abuses of power occurred.

Our confidence in moving forward as a nation, both under the rule of law and in accord with our international obligations, requires a thorough consideration of what has happened to our legal and political institutions and why.

That is why in honor of International Human Rights Day and the importance of restoring America’s standing in the world as a beacon of human rights, we sent Attorney General Eric Holder a letter and petition, urging him to release the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report on the authors of the "torture memos," Jay Bybee, Steven Bradbury, and John Yoo, and authorize an investigation of those who ordered, designed, and authorized torture.

Weekly Judicial Selection Snapshot

As we mentioned earlier this week, we are now providing data on judicial selections more frequently. Here is this week's update:

On Tuesday, the Senate confirmed Jacqueline Nguyen to a seat on the United States District Court for the Central District of California by a vote of 97 to 0. Judge Nguyen, previously a Superior Court Judge for the County of Los Angeles, is the first Vietnamese American to serve as an Article III judge in our nation's history. She is the seventh Obama district court nominee to be confirmed.

Also on Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the nomination of O. Rogeriee Thompson to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. There were no Republican committee members present at the hearing. If confirmed, Thompson would be the first African American and the second woman to serve on the First Circuit.

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Thomas I. Vanaskie, nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, to the full Senate by a vote of 16-3, with Grassley (R-IA), Coburn (R-OK), and Cornyn (R-TX) voting no. The committee also advanced Louis B. Butler, Jr., nominee to the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, to the full Senate by a party-line vote of 12-7.

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held over votes on Denny Chin, nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Rosanna Peterson, nominee to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, and William M. Conley, nominee to the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, until next Thursday.

This morning, President Obama announced three district court nominations: Nancy D. Freudenthal to the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, D. Price Marshall Jr. to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, and Benita Y. Pearson to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Judicial Nominations Numbers

27 Nominations Overall (nominee last names in parentheses):

11 Confirmations:

Breakdown by Court:

1 SCT: (Sotomayor)
3 CCA: (Lynch, Davis, Hamilton)
7 DCT: (Viken, Lange, Berger, Honeywell, Reiss, Kallon, Nguyen)
19 Nominees Pending:

Breakdown by Court:

9 CCA: (Thompson, Chin, Vanaskie, Greenaway, Keenan, Diaz, Wynn, Stranch, Martin)
10 DCT: (Jackson, Butler, Conley, Seeborg, Gee, Chen, Peterson, Freudenthal, Marshall, Pearson)
Breakdown by Status:

10 Nominees Pending in the Judiciary Committee:

4 CCA: (Thompson, Chin, Diaz, Wynn)
6 DCT: (Jackson, Conley, Peterson, Freudenthal, Marshall, Pearson)
9 Pending on the Senate Floor:

5 CCA: (Greenaway, Keenan, Stranch, Martin, Vanaskie)
4 DCT: (Seeborg, Gee, Chen, Butler)
97 Total Federal Court Vacancies:

20 Court of Appeals ("CCA") Vacancies
77 District Court ("DCT") Vacancies
0 Supreme Court ("SCT") Vacancies