Other courts

  • April 24, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    If you’re one of the president’s nominees to the federal bench it helps to have a signficant connection to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

    Jane Kelly, an assistant public defender in Iowa, nominated in January to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was today confirmed to the federal appeals court 96 – 0. She was nominated by President Obama in January. She is the second woman and first public defender to serve on the Eighth Circuit. Both state senators, Grassley and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) worked closely to move along the nomination.

    But of course most nominees do not have the sort of backing Kelly received. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) in a press statement lauding the confirmation, again noted that on average the president’s appeals court nominees “wait 132 days for a vote in the Senate, compared to just 18 days” for Obama’s predecessor. 

    Regardless of uninformed or brain-addled pundits who argue Obama is at fault for the judicial vacancy crisis or for filibusters of certain pieces of legislation, the reality is that Senate Republicans led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-K.Y.) have stuck to agenda of obstruction. In the case of the federal bench, Senate Republicans have put aside the concerns of Americans who should and need to be able to rely on an efficient court system for political machinations.

    Sen. Grassley, who supported Kelly, saying she is “well regarded in my home state” is also leading an effort to limit the president’s ability to fill vacancies on the 11-member U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit is one of the nation’s most important federal appeals courts, hearing complex litigation often focusing on high-profile constitutional concerns. Patricia Wald, who served on the D.C. Circuit for 20 years, wrote for The Washington Post that the Circuit “hears complex, time-consuming, labyrinthine disputes over regulations with the greatest impact on ordinary American lives: clean air and water regulations, nuclear plant safety, health-care reform issues, insider trading and more.”   

  • April 19, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Allison Guttu*

    On April 5, U.S. federal judge in Tummino et al. v. Hamburg ordered that the Morning-After Pill be made available "without a prescription and without point-of-sale or age restrictions within thirty days."

    Until the court’s ruling, emergency contraception was only available without a prescription for women 17 and up, forcing all women to be “carded” to buy it. Now, the Morning-After Pill or “Plan B” can be stocked on any shelf in any store, next to condoms, aspirin, or shampoo. No prescription or identification will be needed to buy it.

    The Morning-After Pill prevents pregnancy up to 5 days after sex; but is most effective within the first 24 hours. It is not RU-486, which induces an abortion. If you are pregnant, it will not work. But, having this form of birth control at our fingertips will give women enormous freedom--if we don’t want to have a child, we won’t have to.

    When women can’t control how many children we have, it impacts us as a group, not just individually. Not being able to control the course of our lives has deep implications for women. It means we have less leverage, whether in the workplace, with partners, in our families, or in our public lives. No birth control method is foolproof. Sometimes our partners resist using condoms, condoms break, and sometimes we forget to take the pill. Less frequently we are "swept away" by the moment, but should that mean that we have to bear a child? The Morning-After Pill is one more way for us to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

    For over a decade, grassroots feminists with National Women’s Liberation (NWL) -- including lead plaintiff Annie Tummino -- have been waging the most important fight in decades to expand access to birth control in the United States: making the Morning-After Pill available over-the-counter without any restrictions.

  • April 11, 2013
    Humor

    by John Schachter

    If “fracking” is one of the buzzwords in the energy policy world these days then “court fracking” might become a new legal catchphrase.

    Court fracking: (noun) the insertion of blatant politics into the judicial system to extract seats on the nation’s second most important court (i.e., the D.C. Circuit) eliminating one and dispersing others to dilute the potential impact of progressive jurists.

    Unlike President Franklin Roosevelt’s ill-fated court-packing scheme of 1937, this fracking plan comes from Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). During yesterday’s hearing on the nomination of Sri Srinivasan to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Sen. Grassley announced that he was introducing legislation to reduce the number of seats on the D.C. Circuit – often called the nation’s second most important court – from 11 to eight. Two of the seats would be moved to other circuit courts while one would be eliminated completely.

    Today just seven of the 11 seats are occupied, although President Obama has now nominated two people for seats – the first of whom Republicans successfully filibustered over the course of three years! Caitlin Halligan in 2010, 2011 and again just last month saw her path to the court blocked by Republicans who apparently feared the presence of more progressive brilliant thinkers on a court currently composed of four Republican appointees and three Democratic ones. And, for good measure, Republicans also blocked a vote on Goodwin Liu in 2010 and 2011 for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

    Few objective court watchers could challenge Halligan or Liu on serious substantive grounds. Ideology is another matter. While Republican critics portrayed Liu as a rogue activist, his year and a half on the California Supreme Court since his failed federal nomination reveal him to be a brilliant, well-respected and impartial jurist. Halligan had strong support from some the nations’ leading legal minds – including former officials from the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations – yet Republicans characterized her as a virulent anti-gun activist rather than the esteemed legal thinker she has proven to be.

  • April 11, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Sri Srinivasan, President Obama’s second nominee to a vacant seat the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, sailed through yesterday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing largely because he did a masterful job of detailing his career, which offers few hints of an ideological leaning.

    Yesterday, Adam Serwer, for Mother Jones, noted that very little is known about Srinivasan, other than he could be, if placed on the D.C. Circuit, a potential pick for the U.S. Supreme Court. If Srinivasan is confirmed, he will be the first South Asian American to serve on the D.C. Circuit. Serwer also touched upon aspects of Srinivasan’s legal career that might trouble progressives who believe the federal bench is in need of more progressive judges, instead of ones who cater to corporate interests.

    Srinivasan said very little, if anything, to provide Republicans any cause to further delay his route to the D.C. Circuit. (Srinivasan’s hearing before the Committee came more than 300 days after the president nominated him.) He promised a fealty to precedent. And Republicans, such as U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who helped scuttle Caitlin Halligan’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit, announced he would support the nomination.

    Republicans like Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), however, are bent on rebranding the D.C. Circuit as a court with too many judges and a light caseload. At the start of the hearing Grassley, the Committee’s Ranking Member, announced the introduction of bill to cut the number of active judges on the D.C. Circuit to 8 from 11. Grassley’s bill, co-sponsored by Republican senators Hatch, Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), John Cornyn (Texas), Mike Lee (Utah), Jeff Flake (Ariz.) and Ted Cruz (Texas), claims, “It is no secret that the D.C. Circuit is the least-busy, least-worked appellate court in the nation.”

    It appears Senate Republicans are preparing to give Obama one chance to put a judge on the D.C. Circuit and no more, leaving the D.C. Circuit likely tilting rightward, though at the moment it’s impossible to know exactly what if any ideology Srinivasan carries. Moreover, a confirmation is certainly not assured in this climate.

  • April 9, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Though the Senate finally confirmed Judge Patty Shwartz to a seat on the federal appellate court bench, one should hardly take that as a sign that the Republican-led band of obstructionists is ready to alter its agenda of delaying judicial nominations.

    Shwartz was confirmed to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit by a vote of 64 – 34. She was re-nominated earlier this year by President Obama. As Judging The Environment notes, Shwartz was originally nominated by Obama in fall 2011.

    ACS President Caroline Fredrickson, while applauding the confirmation of Shwartz, a federal magistrate judge in Newark, N.J., said the process was “all too typical for the president’s judicial nominee, and that must change.” She continued, “Filling our benches must become and remain a priority for the Senate so people can have faith in our system to guarantee every American fair and swift justice.”

    Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) also noted the snails’ pace of confirmation for judges. Shwartz “should not have been delayed for more than a year,” he said in a statement. “Sadly, this is not an isolated case but one in a steady pattern of obstruction.”

    White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, before the vote took place, noted that nearly 400 days had passed since Shwartz’s second hearing.

    Carney said, “After her expected confirmation, there will still be 14 other judicial nominees awaiting floor votes. Of these 14, 13 were approved by the Judiciary Committee unanimously, and the five nominees would fill judicial emergencies. They have been waiting on the Senate floor for an average of 67 days for a vote. That’s nearly twice as long as President’s Bush’s judicial nominees.”