Obama finally starts to push federal judge confirmations...

... at least a little bit.  According the BLT:

President Barack Obama called on the Senate today to vote on long-stalled nominees for the federal judiciary -- dipping a toe into an issue that has appeared relatively low among his priorities.


In remarks at the White House, Obama said he wants to work with Republicans to fill judicial vacancies. He did not name any individual nominees, but he appeared to reference Nashville, Tenn., labor lawyer Jane Stranch when he said nominees have been waiting as long as eight months to be confirmed.


Obama nominated Stranch in August 2009 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, based in Cincinnati. Although she has bipartisan support and there’s no organized, public effort to block her, she’s been waiting since November for a confirmation vote by the full Senate.


“Most of these folks were voted out of committee unanimously, or nearly unanimously, by both Democrats and Republicans,” Obama said. “Both Democrats and Republicans agreed that they were qualified to serve. Nevertheless, some in the minority have used parliamentary procedures time and again to deny them a vote in the full Senate.”

Hopefully, Kathy can get a hearing quickly.

In other news, the NY Times is calling for change in white collar sentences and child porn sentences:

Sentencing for white-collar crimes — and for child pornography offenses — “has largely lost its moorings,” according to the Justice Department, which makes a strong case that the matter should be re-examined by the United States Sentencing Commission....


As a general principle, sentences for the same federal crimes should be consistent. As the Justice Department notes in its report, a sense of arbitrariness — sentences that depend on the luck of getting a certain judge — will “breed disrespect for the federal courts,” damaging their reputation and the deterrent effect of punishment.


Possession of a single piece of child pornography, for example, is supposed to result in a five-to-seven-year sentence — longer with aggravating circumstances — but many judges instead are imposing probation or one year for first offenses. Many federal judges have told the sentencing commission that the child pornography guidelines are far too severe.


The Justice Department is not explicitly recommending that sentences be lowered; in fact, the new financial regulatory law suggests higher sentences in some areas. But readjusting the guidelines downward in some cases is clearly one of the possible routes the sentencing commission could take. The rules for child pornography, for example, include extra penalties for using a computer, but everyone in that repugnant world uses a computer, rendering the rules obsolete.


The key in both areas is helping judges find ways to differentiate the worst offenders from those who have caused less damage or are less of a threat to society. White-collar sentences are now based on the size of the fraud, but that may not be the best way to measure the role of a defendant or the venality and damage involved.


As repellent as child pornography is, it does not help judges when someone found with a few photographs is held to similar standards as someone disseminating thousands of them. These are sensitive areas, but a thoughtful re-examination by the commission and Congress could bring new respect for the federal judiciary.

I agree that these issues need to be looked at closely; but the NY Times and the Justice Department are wrong that we should be seeking consistency in sentencing.  Each person and each case is different.  And accordingly, each sentence needs to be individual.  Basically, what Emerson said.

It's official --

-- Jonathan Goodman is now a magistrate judge. The background check is over and JG is good to go. Congrats!

But, we're still waiting for the White House to nominate Kathy Williams. What is taking so long? It's just ridiculous. Obama has really failed so far with the federal judiciary. Here's the latest article by msnbc.com:

Democrats control the White House and have the largest congressional majorities enjoyed by a chief executive in decades. But President Barack Obama isn't off to a brisk pace when it comes to putting his imprint on the third branch of government — the federal courts — and some of his allies are disappointed, particularly with the prospect of a slimmed-down Senate majority after the midterm elections.

At the highest level, the Supreme Court, Obama is already having a major impact. His first nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, was confirmed to the high court last year and his second, Elena Kagan, seems well on her way to confirmation. Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, did not get his second (and final) justice until 2006, six years into his presidency.

But the vast majority of federal cases never reach the high court; they are decided by appeals court judges, making appointments to that level crucial to determining a president's judicial legacy.

The Senate has confirmed nine of Obama’s 21 appeals court nominees. That compares with eight out of 30 appeals court nominees confirmed for Bush at the same point in his first term as president.

But unlike Bush, Obama was elected with a majority of the popular vote and works with a Senate in which his party has 59 senators — at least for now.

“You’d expect President Obama, elected with a comfortable margin and with the number of Democratic senators there now are, to have had a lot more judges confirmed by now,” said Russell Wheeler, former deputy director of the Federal Judicial Center, the research agency for the federal courts. Wheeler is a fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Eleven prominent liberal law professors complained to Obama in an open letter in February that “your Administration must act with far more energy and dispatch in the vitally important task of nominating and confirming federal judges.”

Where are the judges?

Jeffrey Toobin asks this question in the New Yorker. It's a fair question. What is taking Obama so long? Toobin:

When Obama took office, there were more than a hundred vacancies on the federal appeals and district courts. One year into his tenure, Obama has made only thirty-one appointments to those courts, and just twelve have been confirmed. In George W. Bush’s first year, with a similar number of vacancies, he made sixty-four nominations. White House officials assert that ten new district court nominations are imminent, but the overall pace remains astonishingly slow. I wrote about this aspect of Obama’s Presidency last September, and the trend has continued.

Why is this? In part, it’s because a Supreme Court vacancy, which the President filled with the admirable Sonia Sotomayor, occupied the White House through the summer months. That successful nomination is both more important—and was more time-consuming—than any of the others.

But there is another major factor as well. As a former Senator himself, the President is a believer in the tradition of senatorial direction of district-court nominations, and senatorial influence on appeals-court choices. The President wanted to include senators in the process, including those of the opposition party. It was an example of Obama’s post-partisan plans in action. If Republicans had a voice in the judicial nominations process, the theory went, partisan bickering would slow, if not cease, and the judiciary would inch away from the culture wars.
As in other areas, Obama’s hopes for post-partisanship failed when it came to the judiciary. Republicans have stalled on many nominations, fought others, and mostly done their best to slow down the pace. What’s perplexing is that Obama himself has not filled the pipeline with nominations; if he did, Republicans might feel some pressure to move the process along. Senator Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has held prompt hearings for all of Obama’s nominees, but he can’t hold hearings on nominations that haven’t yet been made.

I don't think either of these explanations work. So what that the administration was working on Justice Sotomayor? It should have been working equally hard on filling the other slots. And as for wanting the Senators' support, I'm not sure this is true. In Florida, for example, the rumors are that the Oval Office did not want a recommendation from the Senators (even though that's how it had worked in the past), which delayed the process. Thankfully, Kathy Williams is finally being vetted. But more openings are on the horizon in the District; hopefully we'll see them filled faster.

UPDATE -- Well, at least one open seat (Lanier Anderson's) just got filled -- the Senate just confirmed new 11th Circuit judge Beverly Martin 97-0. Congrats!

"WAWW"

That was the name of 22 of Scott Rothstein's corporations and it stood for "What a Wonderful World." Indeed. Here's the Sun-Sentinel story covering the genesis of the Rothstein spending, which started sometime in 2005.

I know, I know, enough Rothstein. But the Wall Street Journal got in the act, even including a slide-show. And here's the accompanying article, with some interesting stories including this one:

At an Eagles concert this year, Don Henley, the band's drummer, singled out Mr. Rothstein and his wife, Kimberly. "I don't normally do this, but this goes out to Scott and Princess Kimmy on their one-year wedding anniversary," Mr. Henley told the audience as the band ripped into "Life in the Fast Lane," its paean to the perils of excess. Mr. Rothstein paid $100,000 to one of Mr. Henley's charities for the dedication.

If you are sick of Rothstein, you're gonna want to puke after another story about how abysmal Obama has been with judicial selections. The New York Times has weighed in:

President Obama has sent the Senate far fewer judicial nominations than former President George W. Bush did in his first 10 months in office, deflating the hopes of liberals that the White House would move quickly to reshape the federal judiciary after eight years of Republican appointments.
Mr. Bush, who made it an early goal to push conservatives into the judicial pipeline and left a strong stamp on the courts, had already nominated 28 appellate and 36 district candidates at a comparable point in his tenure. By contrast, Mr. Obama has offered 12 nominations to appeals courts and 14 to district courts.
Theodore Shaw, a Columbia University law professor who until recently led the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., said liberals feared that the White House was not taking advantage of its chance to fill vacancies while Democrats enjoy a razor-thin advantage in the Senate enabling them to cut off the threat of filibusters against nominees. There are nearly 100 vacancies on federal courts.
“It’s not any secret that among the civil rights community and other folks there has been a growing concern about the pace of nominations and confirmations,” Mr. Shaw said. “You have to move fairly quickly because things are going to shut down before you know it, given that next year is an election year and who knows what is going to happen in the midterm elections. No one wants a blown opportunity.”

Seriously, what is taking so long?

Obama stuff

Who was right on the oath flub? Most have sided with Obama, but here's Roberts' side of the story (via Althouse).

Is Obama keeping his Blackberry or some other device? (Hat tip: JK)

More of the same from Obama? Here's a funny Jon Stewart clip:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Changefest '09 - Obama's Inaugural Speech

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video