A Follow Up on Judicial Confirmations

In my article from earlier this week, I referenced a differential standard applied by Republicans and Democrats for federal judges whose qualifications are believed to be solid but whose perceived ideology is contrary to the party which did not make the nomination. In effect, the piece argued that Republicans have shown far more willingness to confirm “liberal” judges nominated by a Democratic President if they meet the qualifications for the job. And that Democrats are much more likely to oppose “conservative” nominees purely on ideology alone, regardless of qualifications.

A brief perusal of the Obama and Trump appellate (federal circuit court and Supreme Court) appointments flatly establishes this reality. As mentioned, now 27 of 40 Trump appointments (including both Supreme Court nominees) have received less than 60 Senate votes, a number indicative of at least a reasonable measure of bipartisan support.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

In sharp contrast, only 8 of 57 Obama appointments to the appellate courts (including both of his Supreme Court appointments) received less than 60 votes. And a stunning number of Obama appointments had nearly zero opposition from Republicans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama

To state that this is a staggering difference is probably an understatement. In effect, under Trump, a once bipartisan process has become a partisan shooting gallery, and it has not been the right doing the shooting. Particularly in light of Democratic structural disadvantages in the Senate (which favors small and mid-sized states that lean more “red” than “blue”), down-the-line partisanship on judges is almost certain to benefit Republicans over the long term. Again, Senate Democrats ought to rethink their court strategy, and rethink it quickly.