Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RandySF

(59,167 posts)
Thu Nov 24, 2022, 02:57 PM Nov 2022

Joe Biden has a chance to rebalance America's judiciary

The Economist: “The most enduring legacy of Donald Trump’s presidency are the 234 judges he installed in the federal courts, amounting to more than a quarter of America’s 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 one—Ketanji Brown Jackson—to the Supreme Court.”



https://politicalwire.com/2022/11/24/biden-has-a-chance-to-rebalance-the-judiciary/

19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Joe Biden has a chance to rebalance America's judiciary (Original Post) RandySF Nov 2022 OP
He's got a long way to go RainCaster Nov 2022 #1
Hope he gets to nominate a couple more SC justices. 70sEraVet Nov 2022 #2
How? SoCalDavidS Nov 2022 #3
The next open seat on SC is most likely to be Clarence Thomas'. 70sEraVet Nov 2022 #4
Life expectancy disparities Zeitghost Nov 2022 #5
We can hope, Zeitghost, we can hope. 70sEraVet Nov 2022 #6
Sure, But That's Still Only One, And You Said Two Appointments SoCalDavidS Nov 2022 #7
I don't think we'll see a SCOTUS expansion. In It to Win It Nov 2022 #12
Sam Alito is an angry man BradAllison Nov 2022 #18
I don't know what obstacles are to expanding the Supreme court....but NowsTheTime Nov 2022 #8
Don't blame Democrats for Republican's bad behavior. W_HAMILTON Nov 2022 #9
I am blaming the Republicans!! NowsTheTime Nov 2022 #10
And McConnell would have done it regardless... W_HAMILTON Nov 2022 #11
I don't want to argue here...I think we are on the same side.. NowsTheTime Nov 2022 #13
"As I understand it, Obama did change the vote to 50 for regular confirmation of Federal judges" BumRushDaShow Nov 2022 #14
+1 betsuni Nov 2022 #15
I stand corrected, but what can we do now? NowsTheTime Nov 2022 #16
Make sure that we keep Senate control BumRushDaShow Nov 2022 #17
Interesting Article... NowsTheTime Nov 2022 #19

SoCalDavidS

(9,998 posts)
3. How?
Thu Nov 24, 2022, 03:29 PM
Nov 2022

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)
4. The next open seat on SC is most likely to be Clarence Thomas'.
Thu Nov 24, 2022, 03:50 PM
Nov 2022

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.

Provisional data from 2020 show that overall life expectancy across all racial/ethnic groups was 77.3 years (Figure 13). Life expectancy for Black people was only 71.8 years compared to 77.6 years for White people and 78.8 years for Hispanic people. Life expectancy was even lower for Black males at only 68 years.

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)
5. Life expectancy disparities
Thu Nov 24, 2022, 03:58 PM
Nov 2022

Are largely driven by economic factors. Thomas is well off and has access to the best healthcare around.

SoCalDavidS

(9,998 posts)
7. Sure, But That's Still Only One, And You Said Two Appointments
Thu Nov 24, 2022, 04:48 PM
Nov 2022

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)
12. I don't think we'll see a SCOTUS expansion.
Thu Nov 24, 2022, 10:13 PM
Nov 2022

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.

NowsTheTime

(697 posts)
8. I don't know what obstacles are to expanding the Supreme court....but
Thu Nov 24, 2022, 09:17 PM
Nov 2022

....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)
9. Don't blame Democrats for Republican's bad behavior.
Thu Nov 24, 2022, 09:35 PM
Nov 2022

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)
10. I am blaming the Republicans!!
Thu Nov 24, 2022, 09:57 PM
Nov 2022

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)
11. And McConnell would have done it regardless...
Thu Nov 24, 2022, 10:06 PM
Nov 2022

...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)
13. I don't want to argue here...I think we are on the same side..
Fri Nov 25, 2022, 10:15 PM
Nov 2022

....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)
14. "As I understand it, Obama did change the vote to 50 for regular confirmation of Federal judges"
Sat Nov 26, 2022, 05:35 AM
Nov 2022
CIVICS 101 LESSON: The President of the United States, who is head of the Executive Branch, has no power or authority to make any changes to the Rules or any other operation of the Senate, which is a part of the Legislative Branch.

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.

BumRushDaShow

(129,388 posts)
17. Make sure that we keep Senate control
Sun Nov 27, 2022, 06:47 AM
Nov 2022

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 -

THE NEW YORKER
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 Obama’s judges will continue serving well after he leaves office.



http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/27/obama-brief


WASHINGTON POST
The ‘nuclear option’ transforms Obama’s 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. That’s the highest single-year total in 20 years, and the highest two-year total since 1980. (That’s 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, it’s 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 will leave office with 329 of his judicial nominees confirmed to lifetime posts on federal courts. That includes two U.S. Supreme Court justices and four judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the two most powerful courts in the nation. Because of Obama, Democratic appointees now have a 7-4 advantage on the D.C. panel, and those judges will play a major role in deciding cases during the Trump administration related to environmental regulations, health care, national security, consumer protections and challenges to executive orders.

Obama also tilted the partisan makeup of circuit courts. Nine of the country’s 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

Appointments by President

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)).
    Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Joe Biden has a chance to...