General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJoe Biden has a chance to rebalance America's judiciary
The Economist: The most enduring legacy of Donald Trumps presidency are the 234 judges he installed in the federal courts, amounting to more than a quarter of Americas judiciary and a third of the Supreme Court.
Now that Democrats have retained control of the Senate, Joe Biden can make a mark of his own. He has already seated 85 judges, including 25 to the powerful circuit courts of appeal and oneKetanji Brown Jacksonto the Supreme Court.
https://politicalwire.com/2022/11/24/biden-has-a-chance-to-rebalance-the-judiciary/
RainCaster
(10,912 posts)It will help when Raphael wins in GA.
70sEraVet
(3,508 posts)TFG's 3 appointees are all young. The other 3 conservatives aren't going to retire. Only possibility is if two of them die in the next 26 months, and how likely is that?
I guess you never know, but I wouldn't count on it. Perhaps the Democrats can hold the Senate & Presidency in 2024, to give more time, but in the next 2 years is a longshot.
70sEraVet
(3,508 posts)He is 74, and given that life expectancy for an African American male is considerably lower than that of an American white male, statistically, his should be the next available seat.
https://www.kff.org/report-section/key-facts-on-health-and-health-care-by-race-and-ethnicity-health-status-outcomes-and-behaviors/
Zeitghost
(3,867 posts)Are largely driven by economic factors. Thomas is well off and has access to the best healthcare around.
70sEraVet
(3,508 posts)SoCalDavidS
(9,998 posts)Turtle Fucked us but good. Sadly I don't think I may ever see a Democratic majority on the Court again in my lifetime. I'm 56.
And no, I don't see it as likely that we'll be able to expand the Court, even though people here like to offer that possibility.
In It to Win It
(8,280 posts)Maybe an expansion of the lower courts because they legitimately need it. But that's a big maybe.
The Supreme Court would have to do something so radical that even Republicans would be calling for an expansion. Since they're unharmed by it, it won't happen.
In order for us to get a majority on the Court, at minimum, we'd have to maintain the presidency and/or the senate for the next 3 presidential election cycles and hope Clarence Thomas or Alito or Roberts retires or croaks.
BradAllison
(1,879 posts)He seems on the verge of a heart attack.
NowsTheTime
(697 posts)....We need to recognize it is now a political body! Perhaps it has always been to some degree.
A rule/law that ensures it is balanced politically only by a margin of one justice would help as we can no longer rely on the integrity of justices.
Probably never could, but the change from 60 Senate votes to 50 was a catastrophe!
We should not use "nuclear options".
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-option-why-trumps-supreme-court-pick-needs-only-51-votes-in-the-senate/
W_HAMILTON
(7,871 posts)Republicans would never let a filibuster prevent them from taking power they want; case in point: Democrats most certainly did NOT remove the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees and the second Democrats threatened a filibuster to prevent Republicans from seating Trump's Supreme Court nominees, Republicans did away with it.
EDIT: Your article even points this distinction out. So, don't blame Democrats for what the Republicans did. The Democrats kept the filibuster in place for Supreme Court nominees and all of Obama's nominees got 60+ votes. REPUBLICANS were the ones that did away with the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. THEY were the ones that invoked the so-called "nuclear option" here.
NowsTheTime
(697 posts)As I understand it, Obama did change the vote to 50 for regular confirmation of Federal judges, but NOT Supreme court justices.
M. Mitch used it s an excuse to change the criteria for Supreme Court Justices. (the Senate rules really need some work, but that is a whole different pile of worms)
W_HAMILTON
(7,871 posts)...because the rule was never changed for Supreme Court nominees to begin with. So, that is all on the Republicans -- period. Trying to say that "we should not use nuclear options" is indirectly blaming Democrats for what the Republicans did. Whether or not the nuclear option was used for non-Supreme Court nominees, Republicans would have inevitably used it to ram through their Supreme Court nominees -- you understand that, right?
NowsTheTime
(697 posts)....the point is that the Supreme court wields to much political power for the Right currently.........how do we fight this NOW?
term limits even if enacted.......won't have much effect for a long time!
Other than to get more MILLENNIALS and GEN Z to vote.
BumRushDaShow
(129,388 posts)Harry Reid (D) was the Senate Majority Leader at the time (2013) when a carve-out "nuclear option" was enacted in order to halt the unprecedented blocking by the GOP, of Obama's nominees. The one appointment left that still required 60 votes as part of the carve-out, was for the SCOTUS, which Turtle promptly removed when the GOP took over the Senate in 2014.
betsuni
(25,610 posts)NowsTheTime
(697 posts)BumRushDaShow
(129,388 posts)and Schumer has been doing just like Turtle did - funneling judicial confirmations through the Senate. Biden's appointments are literally the most diverse of any President in the 235 year history of this country. This is why there has been extreme "judge shopping" going on by 45.
Some of the media have managed to lapse into amnesia and I have posted this on DU multiple times the past 5 years including here, but -
Annals of Law
October 27, 2014 Issue
The Obama Brief
The President considers his judicial legacy.
By Jeffrey Toobin
The transformation of the D.C. Circuit has been replicated in federal courts around the country. Obama has had two hundred and eighty judges confirmed, which represents about a third of the federal judiciary. Two of his choices, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, were nominated to the Supreme Court; fifty-three were named to the circuit courts of appeals, two hundred and twenty-three to the district courts, and two to the Court of International Trade. When Obama took office, Republican appointees controlled ten of the thirteen circuit courts of appeals; Democratic appointees now constitute a majority in nine circuits. Because federal judges have life tenure, nearly all of Obamas judges will continue serving well after he leaves office.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/27/obama-brief
The nuclear option transforms Obamas judicial legacy
By James Downie December 19, 2014
Finally, after years of threatening, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) went on the Senate floor in November 2013 and invoked the nuclear option, changing the Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster for executive branch and judicial nominees (other than those for the Supreme Court).
A year later, the effect of that change is clear: The 113th Congress confirmed 132 district and circuit court judges, including 89 this year. Thats the highest single-year total in 20 years, and the highest two-year total since 1980. (Thats particularly impressive considering that this Congress was one of the least productive in history.) On Tuesday night alone, the Senate confirmed 12 nominees. All this means that the once-lagging Obama has now appointed more judges in his first six years (305) than Reagan, Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. And because Obama has gone out of his way to nominate judges from a wide array of backgrounds, the federal bench is more diverse than ever. All in all, its an extraordinary turnaround, one that both Obama and Reid deserve credit for.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/12/19/the-nuclear-option-transforms-obamas-judicial-legacy/
And more recently after he left office in 2017 -
Obama also tilted the partisan makeup of circuit courts. Nine of the countrys 13 appeals courts now have majority Democratic appointees, compared with just one when he took office in 2009.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barack-obama-judicial-legacy_us_586c1944e4b0de3a08f9eb1f
As compiled by Ballotpedia - https://ballotpedia.org/Current_federal_judges_by_appointing_president_and_circuit
Following are the number of Article III federal judges serving in the federal judiciary as of November 27, 2022, organized by the president who appointed them.
Appointed by Democrat presidents:
Joe Biden: 81 Barack Obama: 276 Bill Clinton: 48 Jimmy Carter: 0
Appointed by Republican presidents:
Donald Trump: 229 George W. Bush: 131 George H.W. Bush: 11 Ronald Reagan: 12 Gerald Ford: 0
The fact that 45 had that many after 4 years was thanks to Turtle (between his blocking of Obama appointments and then making sure that vacancies that rolled over were eventually filled by 45).
From Ballotpedia (same link) if you spool off to the Appeals Courts, the current "balance" is about 1/2 each however Biden has pending nominations (and a couple vacancies, where more will most likely occur given some judges go back to Raygun and Poppy). But if Biden is able to continue his current rate of nominations and Senate confirmations, he can get it back to pre- 2017 levels, where 45 had to do excess just to take the Appellate from 9 (D)/4 (R) at the beginning of 2017 to 6 (D)/7 (R) currently (where Obama inherited an Appellate majority split of 3 (D)/10 (R) in 2009 and left it with that 9 (D)/4 (R)).