Jonathan Bernstein pushes Democrats to do more about judicial nominations in an op-ed for The New York Times:
But the Democrats share a large part of the blame as well. For one thing, the president has named only nine judges for the 17 appeals court vacancies and only 41 judges for the 85 open district court seats. That's significantly fewer nominations than Presidents George W. Bush or Bill Clinton had sent to Congress by this time in their first terms.
Moreover, unlike President Bush, President Obama has not used his bully pulpit to push for Senate confirmation of his nominations. Fairly or not, President Bush regularly lambasted Democrats for blocking an “up or down” vote on his nominees. Yet for all the recent chatter about a Republican-fueled judicial crisis, the president rarely speaks about the issue in public, and he didn't mention it in his recent State of the Union address.
Such silence from the White House has repercussions: unless the president speaks up about a relatively thankless task like getting nominations approved, his party's senators are likely to focus on issues with greater political benefits.
A few things. First, Bernstein and I are on the same page; for all the blame Republicans deserve for obstructing judges and breaking the confirmation process, it's also true that this is a case of neglect from Senate Democrats and the president. Second, this is a nice way of illustrating the president's role vis a vis the legislature. The president can't pass laws, but he can set clear priorities for the legislature. That is, like any large organization, the federal government has multiple ares of concern, and it's the president's job to order priorities and offer direction.
Of course, the "where" and "how much" of presidential attention depends on party dynamics, interest-group pressure, and individual concern. In this case, there's been a perfect storm of neglect and disinterest; liberals aren't vocal about their judicial preferences, Democrats are mum about Republican dominance on the courts, and the president's intense legislative focus left little room for executive branch nominations, much less judicial ones.
Going forward, I expect this to change, as the president has a (relatively) smaller agenda and less leverage over Congress. He'll turn his attention to other areas, like nominations, where he has a bit more influence. Still, it's hard to draw attention to the importance of a full judiciary when it's been neglected for the better part of two years.
