Obama's Judicial Legacy

The New York Times says:

Democrats have reversed the partisan imbalance on the federal appeals courts that long favored conservatives, a little-noticed shift with far-reaching consequences for the law and President Obama’s legacy.

For the first time in more than a decade, judges appointed by Democratic presidents considerably outnumber judges appointed by Republican presidents. The Democrats’ advantage has only grown since late last year when they stripped Republicans of their ability to filibuster the president’s nominees.

 

“It’s no surprise that President Obama has been able to transform the ideological makeup of the courts — that happens when you have six years to pick judges and your party controls the Senate,” said Edward Whelan,

President Obama and Senate Democrats Eager to Confirm Judges Before 2014 Elections

New York Times reports: "With the possibility that Republicans could take the Senate in November, the White House and Senate Democrats are working swiftly to confirm judges to the federal courts in an effort to allow President Obama to leave a lasting liberal imprint on the judiciary."

Republicans, the Times says, are "deeply resentful of Mr. Obama for encouraging Senate Democrats to end the filibuster on all presidential nominations but those to the Supreme Court."  Nevertheless, Republicans slow confirmations through the “blue slip”, which allows each senator veto power over any judge from his or her state.

More Obama than Bush Judicial Nominees Confirmed

As of April 4, 2014, Obama has gotten 44 circuit court judges and 191 district court judges confirmed. As of April 4, 2006, Bush had 43 circuit court and 189 district court judges confirmed.  According to Politico.

NYTimes Criticizes Federal Bench for Too Many Corporate Lawyers and Prosecutors

It's not just Republican presidents who appoint corporate attorneys or prosecutors.  The New York Times cites an Alliance for Justice report that says about 85 percent of Mr. Obama’s nominees to the federal bench have been corporate attorneys or prosecutors."  I think the Times is right in saying "though some senators think it’s politically incorrect to say so, a judge’s experience and personal history are, at times, critical to how she or he approaches the job."