Liberal

Potter: Democrats must try to get judicial nominees approved during lame duck session

With the impending midterm elections, concerns are rising that the Senate will shift to a Republican majority and President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees will be consistently delayed and blocked. According to many news sources, it is fairly likely that Republicans will regain control of the Senate following the midterm elections.

Judicial nominees are first selected by the sitting President, must be approved by the home state senators where the judge will serve, be approved by the Judiciary Committee and ultimately voted on and confirmed by the Senate.

In light of the probable change of power, it is crucial that the Democrats try to get as many nominees approved as possible during the coming lame duck session, especially given that once Republicans take over the Senate, it will be even harder to get nominees confirmed.

Throughout Obama’s presidency, the Republican Party has intentionally undermined the approval process of his judicial nominees. This led Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to change the number of votes to end a filibuster from requiring a supermajority of 60 votes to requiring a simple majority.

According to a Oct. 16 Huffington Post article, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that Democrats may soon come to regret this rule change. This creates a complex situation for the Democrats, as the majority vote filibuster rule will likely be continued and used against them.



If the Republican Party wins the Senate, it is essential that the Democrats do not adopt the tactic of excessive filibuster and lack of compromise. Revenge politics may be an effective strategy for gains on behalf of the individual parties but slows the political process to a crawl. The high number of filibusters used by Republicans throughout Obama’s presidency exemplifies the extraordinarily high levels of partisanship in existing politics.

Considering the crippling partisanship, it is problematic that there are 31 judicial vacancies without nominees. Both the president and the senators in the state where the vacancy exists must approve nominees. As the number of vacancies continues to rise, it is crucial to the functioning of our judiciary system that there is compromise made and nominees are put forth and subsequently approved by the Senate.

The rule change, while a response to the high levels of partisanship, will likely have extreme backlash for Democrats in the final two years of Obama’s presidency. If the Republicans regain control of the Senate and retaliate against Reid for the recent rule changes it is possible that no judicial nominees will be confirmed.

Considering the impending threats of continuously blocking Obama’s nominees, it is crucial that the Democrats approve as many nominees as possible in the coming months.

During Obama’s presidency it has been made clear that the Republican Party is not amenable to compromise. According to Politifact.com, prior to the rule change, 79 of Obama’s nominees had been blocked. Sixty-eight nominees were blocked across all other presidencies prior to Obama. This unprecedented lack of compromise on the part of the Republican Party is playing a major role in the productivity and low approval ratings of Congress, and it will only get worse.

It is clear that the Republicans are unlikely to end the cycle of partisanship and unproductivity. It is time for the Democrats to step up to the plate and dedicate themselves to working towards getting politics back on the right track.

Prior to the likely impending Republican takeover of the Senate, it is essential that Obama and Reid work with the Republican Party to get as many nominees approved as possible. The judicial system will take a heavy hit if many seats remain vacant.

Rachel Potter is a senior political science and sociology major. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at [email protected].





Top Stories