ACSBlog

  • February 3, 2012

    by Nicole Flatow

    The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday approved the nomination of law firm partner Paul Watford [pictured] to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a circuit that is now handling double the caseload of other federal circuit courts. But not a single Republican voted to send Watford’s nomination to the Senate floor.

    The 10-6 party-line vote (with two Republicans voting “present”) seems to signal an about-face from the broad bipartisan support Watford received when he was nominated in October.

    "[E]veryone who knows Paul (whether they are conservative or liberal, or somewhere in between) recognizes that he possesses the qualities that are most needed in an appellate judge,” said Jeremy Rosen, former president of the Los Angeles Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society, in a letter to senators calling the nomination of Watford a “home run.”

    “Paul is the sort of Democratic nominee that moderates and conservatives, as well as liberals, should solidly support,” said Eugene Volokh, a blogger for the conservative blog, The Volokh Conspiracy.

    Others who voiced their support included David Collins, a colleague of Watford’s at Munger, Tolles & Olson who was a lawyer for both Bush administrations and clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and Orin Kerr, a professor at George Washington University and fellow blogger for The Volokh Conspiracy.

    Yet, in a statement opposing Watford’s nomination yesterday, ranking Judiciary Committee Republican Charles Grassley urged his fellow senators to vote against Watford because of “substantive concerns” about his work on immigration and death penalty cases.

  • February 3, 2012
    Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) threatened to escalate Republican obstruction of judicial nominees this week by saying he would block every single nominee unless Richard Cordray is removed as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. President Obama issued a sharp response during his weekly address Saturday, saying, “One senator gumming up the works for the whole country is certainly not what our Founding Fathers envisioned.” During his remarks, Obama reiterated his proposal from the State of the Union address that the Senate hold up-or-down votes on all nominees within 90 days.
     
    The Senate Judiciary considered Paul J. Watford’s nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. After a party line committee vote, his nomination now proceeds to the Senate floor.
     
    President Obama continued to send names to the Senate for confirmation to the federal bench, nominating Stephanie Marie Rose to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa and Michael P. Shea to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
     
    And in an attempt to move the nominations process forward for two judicial emergencies in Georgia, the state’s two Republican senators told the White House this week which potential nominees they would support, The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports.
  • February 3, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Alabama’s harsh anti-immigrant law is already costing the state billions in lost revenue, according to a study by Samuel N. Addy, an economist at the University of Alabama.

    Reporting for Politico, MJ Lee notes that Addy’s report, “determined that the estimated 40,000 to 80,000 unauthorized immigrant workers fleeing the state have resulted in 70,000 to 140,000 jobs lost and $2.3 to $10.8 billion reduction in Alabama’s GDP annually.” The law moreover, is expected to cost the state “$56.7 to $264.5 million in reduced state income and sale tax collections, as well as $20 to $93.1 million less in local sales tax collections ….”

    Addy’s study centers largely on the law’s harm to the state’s overall economy, concluding that because it has already spurred scores of undocumented people to flee the state it has negatively impacted the state’s economic landscape. The professor says the “income generated by these people [undocumented workers fleeing the state] and their spending will decline. That results in a shrinking of the state economy and will be seen in lower economic output, personal income, fewer jobs, and lower tax revenues than would otherwise have been.”

    In coming to this conclusion about the law’s impact on the state’s economy, Addy, perhaps curiously, asserts that nobody “can fault the intent of the law” and that the law is “well-intentioned,” because it is aimed at tackling “illegal immigration.” He also highlights some “potential economic benefits of the law,” such as “saving funds used to provide public benefits to illegal immigrants; increased safety for citizens and legal residents; more business, employment, and education opportunities; and ensuring the integrity of various governmental programs and services.”

    Regardless of the law’s intent, its sweep has provoked protests throughout the state and some withering national scrutiny. Shortly after the law’s enactment, The New York Times opined that it was “the country’s cruelest, most unforgiving immigration law.”

  • February 2, 2012
    Guest Post

    By Russell Wheeler, a visiting fellow in the Brookings Institution’s Governance Studies Program


    The judicial confirmation arena has been a battleground during the Obama administration, as it was during the Clinton and Bush administrations (described at greater length in a recent Brookings post from which this post is drawn).

    CONFIRMATION RATES were in the 90 percent range for court of appeals nominees in the 1970s and 1980s but deteriorated in the Clinton and Bush administrations to the low 70 percent range. The Senate, by the end of 2011, had confirmed 67 percent of Obama circuit nominees — although excluding post-July 2011 nominees from the mix raises the rate to 81 percent. The circuit confirmation rate by the end of Obama’s current term is likely to be closer to 67 than 81 percent.

    District confirmations, on the other hand, hovered around the 90 percent mark through the W. Bush administration, but stand now at 73 percent for the Obama administration — 83 percent for pre-August 2011 nominees.

    DISTRICT COURT VACANCIES, due in part to the comparatively low confirmation rate, have increased during the Obama administration — from 41 in January 2009 to 67 at the end of December 2011. By contrast, district court vacancies fell sharply during the first three years of the Clinton and Bush administrations. Obama has held circuit vacancies fairly steady, as did Clinton, although they decreased during Bush’s first three years.

    The increase in district vacancies during the Obama administration has two drivers besides the confirmation rate. One is the comparatively low number of nominees submitted — 133 by the end of 2011, versus 179 and 165 at the end of Clinton’s and Bush’s first three years. The low number of nominations has exasperated liberals who looked to Obama to offset the results of the Bush administration’s determined judicial nomination strategy. Their only consolation is that the pace of nominations has picked up since the slow start in 2001.

  • February 2, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Fuming over the recess appointments President Obama made in January, Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley leveled threats against the Assistant Attorney General Virginia Seitz who authored a legal memorandum backing those appointments. Not only attacking her legal analysis, Grassley said Seitz (pictured) should never be confirmed again for any position.  

    In a piece for The Huffington Post, ACS President Caroline Fredrickson takes Grassley to task for his misguided attacks on Seitz, who he voted to confirm to lead of the Office of Legal Counsel, which is charged with providing legal advice to the president and all executive agencies.

    Fredrickson writes:

    Seitz’s memorandum is straightforward and relies on precedent and historical practice of past attorneys general. If it’s unconvincing to Grassley that’s only because it helped the president stand up to the ongoing obstruction orchestrated by Grassley’s party.

    Since coming into office, President Obama has faced an intensifying front of opposition to his judicial, and many of his executive branch selections. For example, the obstructionism has greatly hobbled our federal courts, where there are more than 80 vacancies and caseloads of courts throughout the nation continue to swell, leaving far too many Americans without access to an efficient judicial system.

    After more than a year of going without a chief, the president moved on naming Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Faced with three vacancies on the five-member board of the National Labor Relations Board, and ongoing of obstruction of nominees to those seats, the president used recess appointments to keep the agency functioning.