At this point in the last two presidents’ first terms, W had 28 lower court justices confirmed and Clinton 27. Guess how many for Obama. Seriously, guess. Come on just guess before you get to the next sentence. Okay, okay, the answer is six, or 6 for those of you who prefer the numeral version, or VI for the strict constitutionalists among us.
Stop and think about those numbers for a moment: 28, 27 and 6.
The Los Angeles Times reports that the issue will come to a head on Tuesday when the Senate votes to end debate over Judge David F. Hamilton. Hamilton happens to be Obama’s first judicial nominee, which was announced by the White House some 230 days ago. 230, 28, 27 and 6.
“This has become more bitter and more partisan than the Clinton years. It is obstructionism across the board,” said Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, an association of environmental, civil rights and consumer advocacy organizations.
Hmm, not moving fast enough on judicial confirmations. This sounds really, really familiar. I might have to go back in time to the pre-historic era, the age before January 20, 2009. What a time it was — when men used public restrooms for more than 1s and 2s, women stayed home and kept house, and we all used Roman numerals because that’s what Jesus used. But let’s throw caution to the wind and go back to this wonderful age . . . if you dare.
Some of you might remember the brew ha ha that Senate Republicans stirred up over delays in getting Bush’s nominees through back in 2001. They got worked up in a tizzy and they were bringing their A game of the day. Orrin Hatch, the esteemed Senator from Utah said at the time:
Anyone who is interested in helping the president in the war on terrorism should support the president’s judicial nominees.
Huh? What? Oh no, he didn’t!
Does that mean that today, Orrin Hatch and the Republican Senate want the terrorists to win?That really can’t really be the case, can it? But the numbers don’t lie: 230, 28, 27 and 6.