12-26-2012, 12:49 PM
Black for Palestine
Join Date: Oct 2006
Casino cash: $7772
The study's summary:
• Clinton and Bush saw decreases in district vacancies of ten percent and 57 percent respectively, while district vacancies under Obama have increased by 40 percent, even though he had about the same number of district vacancies to fill in his first term as did Bush, and fewer than did Clinton.
• Obama submitted fewer district nominees and took longer to submit them, especially for vacancies in states with two Republican senators.
• For circuit nominees, the vacancy-to-nomination data are more jumbled.
• Obama’s district nominees saw longer nomination-to-confirmation times and lower confirmation rates. Even with confirmation rates similar to Clinton or Bush, Obama would not have had as many appointees as they did, because of fewer nominees.
• Obama’s circuit confirmation rates were within the range of his immediate predecessors, and the confirmations came sooner than did Bush’s.
• Obama appointees got Judiciary Committee hearings sooner than did Bush’s but waited much longer for floor action.
• Confirmations by voice vote or unanimous consent have declined, and roll call votes with negative votes have increased.
• There appears to be a relationship, albeit a weak one, between longer hearing-to-confirmation times for Obama district judges and increased negative votes.
• ABA ratings appear to have a relationship, albeit tenuous, to confirmations.
• The Obama administration and the Senate have continued the demographic and vocational background diversification of the federal district and appellate courts.
• Obama’s circuit nominees are on average older than those of his two predecessors.
• Senators’ use of vetting committees had little apparent impact on district court nominations, appointments, or key demographic or vocational backgrounds.
• Obama has reshaped the courts of appeals as to the proportion of judges appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents and may reshape them significantly in his second term.