Obama attempting to change face of the federal judiciary

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama is trying to change the face of a federal judiciary that has a long tradition of white men passing judgment on parties from all walks of life - if he can get his nominees past the Senate.
Republicans have used the powers accorded the Senate minority party to slow Obama's influence on the federal bench. But recent changes to Senate rules suggest the process may begin to move faster, at least at the lower, U.S. District Court level.
Under a recent bipartisan agreement, the Senate will limit debate on district court judge nominees to two hours, far below the 30 hours that used to be allowed. The hope is that it will curtail a tradition dating to the Clinton administration of the president's opposing party stalling judicial nominees.
Democrats also used the tactic on some of President George W. Bush's nominees, but the delays have been particularly long under Obama.
Nearly half of Obama's nominees have waited for more than 100 days for confirmation votes, while less than 10 percent of Bush's waited that long, according to White House figures. Most of the Bush nominees were approved in less than a month after clearing the Senate Judiciary Committee, the White House said.
Michael L. Shenkman, a fellow at the Center for Law and Politics at Columbia Law School who worked on Obama's judicial nominations team in the first two years of his presidency, calculated that district judge vacancies across the country represented more than 275 lost years of judicial work and $160 million in wasted public resources during Obama's first term.
"Having an empty bench means people don't get their cases heard," Shenkman said, adding that federal law requires judges to give priority to criminal cases, so civil cases can face repeated delays. "It makes litigation more frustrating and more expensive."
Nationwide, 90 out of 874 federal judgeships are vacant, with 31 of those vacancies labeled emergencies by the judiciary because of heavy caseloads. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved 13 of Obama's nominees Thursday.
White House press secretary Jay Carney argues that the judges approved by the committee are "extremely well-qualified" and "reflect the president's unprecedented commitment to a judiciary that reflects the nation it serves." The group of 13 includes eight women, six minorities and one openly gay candidate.
"This needless delay is unacceptable, and these nominees deserve immediate consideration by the full Senate," Carney said.
White House officials express little hope that the Senate will change its ways.
They point to Wednesday's confirmation of William Kayatta of Maine to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. Kayatta's nomination a year ago was supported by both of Maine's Republican senators. But other Republicans in the Senate refused to agree to a vote because of election-year politics, so Obama had to renominate Kayatta again this year, even though he ultimately won confirmation without much controversy and with 88 votes in support.
Caroline Fredrickson, president of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, says the change in Senate rules still won't impact nominees to the federal circuit, where appeals are heard and judges have more influence. "Where I'm worried is that on the circuit court nominees, there will be a lot of delay and obstruction that's completely unrelated to anyone's merits," she said.
Despite the delays, Obama was able to make some progress on diversity in his first term, with more black, Hispanic and openly gay federal judges confirmed than in two terms under Bush, according to the White House. Nearly half of Obama's confirmed judges have been women, compared with about a quarter for Bush and Clinton, the White House said.
Obama hopes to build on that diversity in his second term. Only seven of 36 nominations the president currently has pending are of straight white men. Compare that to the makeup of the roughly 780 judges currently active on the federal bench, where 425 are white men, according to the Federal Judicial Center. There are small percentages of minorities - 96 black judges, 70 Hispanic and 17 Asian.
In the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in St. Louis, a group called the Infinity Project was formed to promote more gender equality, with just one woman ever having been appointed to serve on the circuit. Executive Director Debra Fitzpatrick argues that a diverse bench enhances a court's legitimacy by reflecting the population on which it passes judgment.
"You can't always predict when and how and in what ways a person's personal experience will illuminate a case," Fitzpatrick said. She pointed to the case of an Arkansas prisoner named Shawanna Nelson convicted of check and credit card fraud who filed a lawsuit over being shackled to a hospital bed while in labor.
Nelson's attorney, Cathleen Compton, grew frustrated as she argued before the panel why her client, a nonviolent offender, didn't pose a flight risk that required shackling. "I'm a little disadvantaged here, or maybe it's you that are disadvantaged, because I've given birth and you haven't. I can tell you that a woman about to deliver a nearly 10-pound baby is not going anywhere," she said.
The appeals court sided with Nelson, in an opinion written by the sole woman among the 11 judges that heard the case, Clinton-appointed Judge Diana Murphy.
Two weeks ago, Obama nominated another woman, Iowa public defender Jane Kelly, to the 8th Circuit.
Republicans have used the powers accorded the Senate minority party to slow Obama's influence on the federal bench. But recent changes to Senate rules suggest the process may begin to move faster, at least at the lower, U.S. District Court level.
Under a recent bipartisan agreement, the Senate will limit debate on district court judge nominees to two hours, far below the 30 hours that used to be allowed. The hope is that it will curtail a tradition dating to the Clinton administration of the president's opposing party stalling judicial nominees.
Democrats also used the tactic on some of President George W. Bush's nominees, but the delays have been particularly long under Obama.
Nearly half of Obama's nominees have waited for more than 100 days for confirmation votes, while less than 10 percent of Bush's waited that long, according to White House figures. Most of the Bush nominees were approved in less than a month after clearing the Senate Judiciary Committee, the White House said.
Michael L. Shenkman, a fellow at the Center for Law and Politics at Columbia Law School who worked on Obama's judicial nominations team in the first two years of his presidency, calculated that district judge vacancies across the country represented more than 275 lost years of judicial work and $160 million in wasted public resources during Obama's first term.
"Having an empty bench means people don't get their cases heard," Shenkman said, adding that federal law requires judges to give priority to criminal cases, so civil cases can face repeated delays. "It makes litigation more frustrating and more expensive."
Nationwide, 90 out of 874 federal judgeships are vacant, with 31 of those vacancies labeled emergencies by the judiciary because of heavy caseloads. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved 13 of Obama's nominees Thursday.
White House press secretary Jay Carney argues that the judges approved by the committee are "extremely well-qualified" and "reflect the president's unprecedented commitment to a judiciary that reflects the nation it serves." The group of 13 includes eight women, six minorities and one openly gay candidate.
"This needless delay is unacceptable, and these nominees deserve immediate consideration by the full Senate," Carney said.
White House officials express little hope that the Senate will change its ways.
They point to Wednesday's confirmation of William Kayatta of Maine to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. Kayatta's nomination a year ago was supported by both of Maine's Republican senators. But other Republicans in the Senate refused to agree to a vote because of election-year politics, so Obama had to renominate Kayatta again this year, even though he ultimately won confirmation without much controversy and with 88 votes in support.
Caroline Fredrickson, president of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, says the change in Senate rules still won't impact nominees to the federal circuit, where appeals are heard and judges have more influence. "Where I'm worried is that on the circuit court nominees, there will be a lot of delay and obstruction that's completely unrelated to anyone's merits," she said.
Despite the delays, Obama was able to make some progress on diversity in his first term, with more black, Hispanic and openly gay federal judges confirmed than in two terms under Bush, according to the White House. Nearly half of Obama's confirmed judges have been women, compared with about a quarter for Bush and Clinton, the White House said.
Obama hopes to build on that diversity in his second term. Only seven of 36 nominations the president currently has pending are of straight white men. Compare that to the makeup of the roughly 780 judges currently active on the federal bench, where 425 are white men, according to the Federal Judicial Center. There are small percentages of minorities - 96 black judges, 70 Hispanic and 17 Asian.
In the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in St. Louis, a group called the Infinity Project was formed to promote more gender equality, with just one woman ever having been appointed to serve on the circuit. Executive Director Debra Fitzpatrick argues that a diverse bench enhances a court's legitimacy by reflecting the population on which it passes judgment.
"You can't always predict when and how and in what ways a person's personal experience will illuminate a case," Fitzpatrick said. She pointed to the case of an Arkansas prisoner named Shawanna Nelson convicted of check and credit card fraud who filed a lawsuit over being shackled to a hospital bed while in labor.
Nelson's attorney, Cathleen Compton, grew frustrated as she argued before the panel why her client, a nonviolent offender, didn't pose a flight risk that required shackling. "I'm a little disadvantaged here, or maybe it's you that are disadvantaged, because I've given birth and you haven't. I can tell you that a woman about to deliver a nearly 10-pound baby is not going anywhere," she said.
The appeals court sided with Nelson, in an opinion written by the sole woman among the 11 judges that heard the case, Clinton-appointed Judge Diana Murphy.
Two weeks ago, Obama nominated another woman, Iowa public defender Jane Kelly, to the 8th Circuit.
Just think, due to population dynamics, in 100 years the Supreme Court will be all Hispanic. Something for someone person's great grand kid (singular) to look forward too.
@TimBurr if they're fit for the job, I don't see what the problem is. Or are you saying that White people only should be the prominent race in America?
@Ramsesthegreat@TimBurrWhites favor whites, Hispanics favor Hispanics. Hispanics currently have a higher birth rate than whites so eventually whites will be the minority.
@Ramsesthegreat @TimBurr Then why did you state you are white?Â
@TimBurr @Ramsesthegreat I'm white and favor no one because I realize that race is a man made creation. DNA proves this. The only race is the Human Race.
Is the country ready for a radicalized activist judiciary ? Seeing as how we are living in wacky times, I'd say the answer would have to be "ja wohl, mein Fuhrer"
@TimBurr >'Is the country ready for a radicalized activist judiciary'
Unfortunately, Tim... We already have one. It's called the Supreme Court.Â
@MarkKpic@TimBurrWith Obama's 2 compliant picks and probably 2 more in the next 4 years, the Supreme Court will be truly activist
"Is the country ready for a radicalized activist judiciary ", thats already been done by the village idiot when he nominated roberts and alito, you remember "corporations are people" thingy....or do you REALLY believe that....I know, "inspite of yourself" YOU will agree with that decision !
Because, apparently its only racist to qualify people on their race if they are not white. Â
Once again, is it too much to ask that we look at nominated candidates for ANY appointed office based on their credentials and qualifications before considering their skin color, gender identity or party affiliations?
...yep, apparently so.Â
So the village idiot didn't nominate many minoritees because.
A) they weren't qualified....
B) He was racist...
It goes both was doesn't it ! Sheeze, open your mind just a tad ok !
Hummm
@sargerator The inherent innanity of the concept that there is a responsibility to 'diversify' the judiciary is pretty silly when you look at it critically. As is the idea that somehow electing someone because they are gay/straight/white/black/hispanic/woman/man, etc...
The judiciary is not supposed to represent bias in ANY form. The SCOTUS is about the best example of how this theory is perverted to a science by select groups. I guess my frustration comes from the idea that now, according to the article, President Obama is seeking to seed lower courts with specific groups instead of just appointing judiciary representatives who consider legal precident and Constitutional applications of law.Â
Be careful how much you 'open you mind'... It's liable to fall out.Â
@sargeratorThe Supreme Court ruling (Dred Scott v. Sandford)Â was handed down on March 6, 1857....
1857!!!
As in, 6 years before the Emancipation Proclamation was issued.
If you either do not, or choose not to, see the inherent error in using that as evidence of bias in court cases... well... I'm not sure what to tell you.Â
Yes, that is my example a SCOTUS comprised of ALL white males deciding "what to do" with blacks and the slavery issue. Their views were slavery was a rightful objective that was the norm of a WHITE socity ruled by a white legislature AND a white SCOTUS. So how do you represent the demography of a nation of mixed races ?? Hmmm, let me think....jeeeze pretty simple !
From your own findings the demography of the judiciary is different from the whole of the population...so...how would you "correct" that if at some point you didn't consider minorities WITH equal "qualifications" ??? so your revalations on how to avoid, 'consider minorities first' Just wondering ??
@sargeratorDred Scott??? That's your convincing evidence in support of your argument?
In case you haven't noticed, a few things have changed since that ruling. Like blacks no longer being considered property, being allowed to vote and, oh yeah, being elected President of the United States.Â
Believe it or not, the makeup of the sitting judiciary has changed a bit too.  For example, As of August 2009, 70 percent of federal judges were white men, 15 percent were white women, 10 percent were minority (African-American and Hispanic) males, and 3 percent were minority females.
An interesting excerpt from a Brookings Institute study regarding the issue of 'diversification of the judiciary' ;
"Most would agree with the modest proposition that, all things being equal, the federal judiciary should look more or less like the population it serves as to gender, race, and ethnicity â or at least look more or less like the realistic pool of potential judges. Over the last thirty years, the face of the judiciary has changed, although it hardly mirrors the general population and probably not the applicant pool. And it shows different faces in different parts of the country. In any event, thereâs little reason to doubt the changes will continue, regardless of the party in the White House.
Whether the change in district judgesâ vocational background will or should continue is a more difficult question. For one thing, as an empirical matter, there is scant evidence on whether or not they judge differently."
While I will wholeheartedly agree that the judiciary should reflect the demographic makeup of the country as a whole, I steadfastly stand by my belief that there are MUCH better ways to approach this persuit than applying a 'consider minorities first' ideology. As I said above, I sincerely believe that about the single best thing President Obama could do to that end would be to create term limits for federal judges. Attrition could do what he has to fight Congress to do.Â
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856)....read about , learn, then come back and tell me the concept of "legal precedent and constitutional application"
Oh as for your "judiciary representaitive", how would you do that without appointing non-white nominees...I would be interested in your "theory"
Keep in mind (open it, it won't fall out, really) you did use "representative" !
@MarkKpic Who says that hasn't happened? There are a lot more lawyers than judges. I'm not away of any nominees being considered incompetent. With that being the case, it's legit to look at the make up of the judiciary itself to ensure all groups are represented.
@Max Quinn   Racist! If you weren't, then it wouldn't matter what color is in the judiciary. Any judge, regardless of color, should be representing ALL groups. We need COMPETENCE, not the buddy system.
@MarkKpic @Max Quinn @wondering "Are they qualified to fulfill the responsibilities of the position, and does their judicial history show them to be an unbiased officer of the courts with regards to jurisprudence and Constitional application of law."
Totally agree with that. But, I'm guessing that like me, you're a straight white guy. When we say we don't care about race/sex/etc, it's sort of like rich people saying they don't care about money - they don't have to.
Hopefully we'll get to place where none of this matters. We're not there yet.
@Max Quinn @wondering Personally, I could care less if the appointee/candidate is black/white/hispanic/serbian/muslum/catholic/gay/married, etc...Â
Are they qualified to fulfill the responsibilities of the position, and does their judicial history show them to be an unbiased officer of the courts with regards to jurisprudence and Constitional application of law. Period. To throw yet another prerequisite into the mix will only serve to infect more courts with the problems that exist within the SCOTUS.Â
Tell ya what, if President Obama and the Legislature is really serious about diversifying the judicial system, how about imposing term limits on ALL federal judges? Rotation would clean a LOT of stagnation from the system.Â
@wondering @Max QuinnGet a grip.
Didn't I just say that nominees are competent? Are you saying that if there are two qualified nominees, we should always go with the white guy because that's not racist or sexist?
affirmative action
No he is not a racist...sadly I don't care what color he tries to get in just that they are not flaming liberals with no common sense.
@FreedomRocks better to have flaming conservatives with zero common sense like Scalia?
I like that line in dr. strangelove when the admiral offers a jamaican cigar to the russian ambasador.
Admiral: "Try one of these Jamaican cigars, ambassador, they're pretty good."
De Sadeski: "Thank you, no. I do not support the work of imperialist stooges."
Admiral: "Oh, only commie stooges, huh?"
Wow, look at the phrasing the author (a 'Nedra Pickler') chose to use in crafting this observation of the demographics here:
'Obama hopes to build on that diversity in his second term. Only seven of 36 nominations the president currently has pending are of straight white men'
'Only'??? WTF is that? It's written as though that's something to apologize for or have to explain... What is wrong with being 'straight, white, and male' - is that a crime?Â
@ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsPhredEÂ >'What is wrong with being 'straight, white, and male' - is that a crime? '
Currently, no. But, there's always hope that the 'pro-diversity' folks can legislate something in the next 4 years. :-)
@ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsPhredE It is a crime to the left to be white, straight, and if it really really bad if also religious.
'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others'.
The color/ethnicity doesn't matter Mr. President, but the qualifications do.
@ThePosterFormerlyKnownAsPhredEÂ
Love the Animal Farm reference. Had that as required reading back in middle school. We had to read 1984 too...
Think of how much money we're saying NOT having to pay those extra judges to listen to people's frivolous and political lawsuits while Obama decides what colors he's going to choose like he's picking out new carpet for the White House.
Hire the right people. It doesn't matter what ethnicity, gender or sexual preference they are.Â
"Hire the right people. It doesn't matter what ethnicity, gender or sexual preference they are. ", as long as that "ethnicity, gender and sexual preference" are what the gop senate wants...right...D'OH
Right in front of you and you still can't see it....why am I not surprised....oh and for the "all the time wasted" thingy...you did read that the republiCON senate could have just approved that one nominee the FIRST time thru...who wasted time...damn peoples ignorance is frustrating
@Playanekes Sorry we as a society seem to care about color more then qualifications now. We at least the liberal half that must feel guilty and are trying to over compensate or something.
When are we going to select folks for being the best and the brightest instead of their political perceived political gain?
I like this quote.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." -Â Martin Luther King, Jr.
@RalphCramden Give us another 200-300 years and we may be closer to Mr Kings dream.
@FreedomRocks
Mr King's dream was just that, a dream. Humans will never stop being bigots. It's in their nature. The largest bigots are the ones who say they aren't bigots. Typically it is those on the left who bring up race and education all the time a look down on those who don't believe like they do.
The best we can hope for is peaceful coexistence and even that is hard to accomplish.
History shows over and over that we just don't get along with others for extended periods of time.
@FreedomRocks
While that is true there are other bigotries like religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, hell there is even folks who beat up other folks because of the sports team they support.
There will always be something that people will find to segregate into groups.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi7QQ5pO7_A
@RalphCramden @FreedomRocks Ya that damn human nature thing is a bitch but in 300 years from now it will be harder to say you are black, white, Asian etc at least in the USA as more and more multiracial families blur the boundaries.