L.A. Times Misleading Readers Regarding Confirmation of Obama’s Judicial Nominees
[Said in the voice of Homer Simpson:] L.A. Times reporter Carol J. Williams. Is there any legal story she can’t screw up?
Times editors have an editorial today that touts a Williams-penned article about the allegedly slow pace of confirmation of Obama’s judges. Both the editorial and the article it cites do, admittedly, acknowledge that part of the problem is Obama’s slow pace of nominations. But they both imply that Republican stalling tactics are at least half of the problem, if not more. The fact is, though, on closer analysis, basically all of the difference between Bush’s and Obama’s rate of confirmations, at this point in time, can be explained by neutral factors having nothing to do with obstructionism.
In particular, one of the their cited experts says that when you compare apples to apples, the confirmation rate is the same.
Not that the editors or Carol J. Williams told you that. You have to come to this blog for that nugget.
First let’s go to the editorial:
With the exception of his two Supreme Court nominees, President Obama hasn’t made a priority of fully staffing the federal judiciary. Meanwhile, Republicans have stalled the appointments Obama has made in an adolescent grudge match with Democrats — which each party blames the other for beginning.
The result, according to an article this week by Times staff writer Carol J. Williams, is that about one in eight federal judgeships is vacant. Overall, Obama has fared worse than other recent presidents in having judicial nominees confirmed by the Senate. According to the White House, at this point in his presidency Obama has had 48% of his nominees confirmed, compared with 60% for George W. Bush and 68% for Bill Clinton.
I admit that I am having trouble reconciling that with Williams’s article, which came out five days ago, and said:
Obama’s judicial confirmation rate is the lowest since analysts began detailed tracking the subject 30 years ago, with 47% of his 85 nominations winning Senate approval so far. That compares with 87% confirmed during the first 18 months of the previous administration, 84% for President Clinton, 79% for President George H.W. Bush and 93% for President Reagan.
Hmmm. Obama’s rate was 47% five days ago and 48% today? Stranger still, Bush’s rate was 87% according to the news article, and 60% according to the editorial?? (In the five days since Williams’s article was published, did someone go back and retroactively deny a few Bush confirmations while we weren’t looking??? I wouldn’t put anything past Obama at this point.)
Based on these discrepancies, I admit at this point to lacking confidence in these figures. But whichever figure you choose, it still appears that Bush had greater success in getting his nominees confirmed, right?
Mmmm . . . as it turns out, not so much.
Both the editorial and the article quote Russell Wheeler, a Brookings Institution think-tanker. But they don’t tell you that Wheeler has made several findings this year that completely undercut the L.A. Times thesis that Republican obstructionism is a large part of the problem.
Here is a piece from April 15, 2010, in which Wheeler summarizes conclusions from a lengthier study he has done (.pdf) of Obama’s nominations. Wheeler’s lengthier study sets forth several key findings in the introduction, including these:
• proportionately more Obama nominees have gotten hearings, and more quickly;
• confirmation rates after four months of the nomination date are slightly higher for Obama’s circuit nominees than for Bush’s, but the time from nomination to confirmation for Obama circuit appointees is considerably higher than for Bush’s
In his summary article, Wheeler sets forth some of the statistics underlying these conclusions. He acknowledges that Obama’s percentage of confirmations “lags behind” the percentage from the George W. Bush administration. But, Wheeler notes:
The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled proportionately more hearings for Obama nominees than it had for Bush nominees. Ninety-five percent of Obama nominees who had been sent to the Senate before February have had hearings, versus 61% of comparable Bush nominees. (Hearings for five more nominees are scheduled for Friday, April 16.) And Obama nominees who got hearings got them an average of 42 days from nomination — 48 average days for Obama circuit nominees, versus 145 for Bush circuit nominees.
Confirmation rates, though, are nearly identical — 69% for Obama nominees versus 66% for Bush’s, counting only judges nominated before December of 2001 or 2009.
Let me say that again, because it’s very important, and I don’t want you to overlook it. For the relevant time frame, Wheeler notes:
Confirmation rates, though, are nearly identical — 69% for Obama nominees versus 66% for Bush’s.
What’s more, using those time frames, Obama’s confirmation rate for circuit judges was considerably higher than Bush’s:
Obama’s gotten seven circuit nominees confirmed (58% of his pre-December nominees), while Bush got six of his 27 circuit nominees confirmed (22%) in the same time.
Why did Wheeler count only judges nominated before December of 2001 or 2009? Because confirmations take somewhere between 4-7 months. So, in an article published in April 2010, it’s not fair to count nominations made after December 2009 — because there hasn’t been time to get those nominees confirmed.
Wheeler also observes in his study:
All 12 of Obama’s pre-February circuit nominees have received hearings, as have all but two of his comparable district nominees (both are South Carolina nominees submitted on December 22). That compares starkly with the 32 percent and 62 percent rate of hearings for Bush’s pre-February nominees. Obama’s pre-February nominees also got hearings sooner than did Bush’s – 42 days, on average, from nomination, compared to 105. Of course, the committee in 2001-02 had many more nominees to consider.
So why do Obama’s nominees take longer to get confirmed? Republican threats of obstructionism no doubt play a part, just as Democrat threats (and worse) did in the past. But Wheeler explains that the gap is also explained somewhat by Obama’s involvement of the ABA, both pre- and post-nomination. (Bush, by contrast, had cut out the ABA, arguing that its evaluations were highly politicized.)
Doesn’t this put a wee bit different spin on the numbers involved?
P.S. If you’re interested in writing the Readers’ Representative to get an explanation as to how Bush’s confirmation rate dipped from 87% in Williams’s article to 60% in the editorial, you may write her here: readers.representative@latimes.com.
UPDATE: I originally put the 87% figure from Williams’s article at 79%. But 79% was the percentage for G.W. Bush, according to Williams. For G.W. Bush, it was 87% — an even greater discrepancy from the 60% number used in the editorial. Thanks to James B. Shearer for the correction.
This is the sort of post that people said they liked on the thread about the blog.
Unfortunately, it’s also the type of post that tends not to get a lot of comments. Leading the blogger to suspect people are skipping it because of its length.
What is a detail-oriented blogger to do?
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/4/2010 @ 5:47 pmWell, they are going to whine a lot more about Republican obstructionism when they lose control of the Senate …
And with no more factual basis.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/4/2010 @ 5:51 pmIsn’t the 79% for GHW Bush and the 60% for GW Bush?
James B. Shearer (80a1ec) — 9/4/2010 @ 5:57 pmSeeing as the Senate was in Democratic hands, at this time in W’s cycle, that seems like a suspicious figure, also it doesn’t point out that
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/4/2010 @ 6:07 pmbecause of the “Gang of 14” the White House was forced to pick nominees more liberal than the administration was willing to consider
James B. Shearer: you are correct and I have corrected the post. For G.W. Bush it was 87%, not 79%. I had bolded the correct passage, but later in the post I mistakenly used the figure for G.H.W. Bush.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/4/2010 @ 6:14 pmIt also doesn’t mention the campaign to block the most qualified nominees of Bush, like Miguel Estrada, for lower level judgeships anticipating that these highly qualified judges would then be potential supreme court nominees. I believe the filibuster was used, unique in American history as it has only previously used for legislation.
Mike K (d6b02c) — 9/4/2010 @ 6:14 pmThe 60% is from the editorial, the 87% is from the article.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/4/2010 @ 6:16 pmI deleted a comment of mine that totally bollixed up the numbers and would have confused everyone. It was up for all of 5 seconds.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/4/2010 @ 6:17 pmWhat Ian said and why should facts get in the way of the premise of the article? Also, I agree with you.
Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 9/4/2010 @ 6:24 pmSounds odd all right. Let me see if I can get this link in …
According to the Heritage Foundation in 2002, only 38% of Bush’s Circuit Count nominees received a Judiciary Committee hearing in Bush’s first two years in office. Just a hearing, not confirmation.
Subotai (6311c4) — 9/4/2010 @ 6:34 pmSo to sum up, the Soros counterpart to the Federalist is more honest than the LA Times reporter, ‘stop the presses’
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/4/2010 @ 6:40 pmspecial place in Hell
ColonelHaiku (619fc9) — 9/4/2010 @ 6:40 pmreserved for Pat Leahy
he go f*ck himself
Appointing judges is the most important non-security thing a president does. It has an effect on our country that lasts a great deal of time, yet can be sharp and sudden. Some Clinton era judge will do something that makes the headlines and gives you a headache… in ten years.
I find the use of ABA ratings to be quite counter productive, but that’s political and if the democrats want to use them it’s fair to note what that really means.
The obstruction of Bush’s appointments was ridiculous. The idea of making some kind of deal with the left is ridiculous, so the only way not to lose the court system, little by little, to radicals, is to make democrat obstruction of appointments the norm for all sides at all times.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/4/2010 @ 6:43 pmPat,
1. It’s Labor Day weekend; I’ll bet it’s not a heavy reading/commenting time period.
2. Comments are not always an accurate marker of reader interest. I thought that’s why you encouraged lurkers to comment earlier.
3. In my experience, a post of this sort may provoke fewer comments simply because you have really said it, and there is little to either add or nitpick.
Karl (83846d) — 9/4/2010 @ 6:53 pmBut they both imply that Republican stalling tactics are at least half of the problem, if not more.
Well, good. With the ultra-liberal in the Oval Office selecting various people of similar leftist bent throughout the judicial system, I say, hell, yes, slow down the process!
Mark (3e3a7c) — 9/4/2010 @ 7:04 pmBravo.
Fritz (725548) — 9/4/2010 @ 7:27 pmNo comment.
Gazzer (c21e1c) — 9/4/2010 @ 7:56 pmKarl:
I wasn’t commenting on the contemporaneous lack of comments; it had been only 12 minutes.
It was just a prediction. If I put “Sarah Palin sucks!” in the title, I’d get more readers.
Next time I do a substantive post I’m doing that.
And you think I’m kidding.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/4/2010 @ 8:13 pmSo Obama has nominated fewer candidates across the board, took longer to fill a vacancy, yet the numbers are slightly higher for Bush at the end of the cycle, I guess I would have to say thank heaven for small favors, considering some of the choices like that fellow Hamilton, if he was effective, he’d be truly dangerous
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/4/2010 @ 8:22 pmPatterico:
No, I don’t but I don’t think it is necessary either. Karl has it behind door number 3 up there.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 9/4/2010 @ 8:52 pm“With the exception of his two Supreme Court nominees, President Obama hasn’t made a priority of fully staffing the federal judiciary.”
That’s because he’s been so laser-focused on jobs, jobs, jobs and the economy. Think what kind of mess he could have made if were actually focused on nominating judges the way he’s been focused on the economy.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/4/2010 @ 9:02 pmDaleyrocks has it right. Obama does greater damage when he’s on the job. He’s so over his head that he’s running away from his responsibilities. Endless vacationing and golf. It can be done when you have a complicit media covering for you.
Rich (7d8a36) — 9/5/2010 @ 6:11 amWhy don’t we also compare the rates from 2007-2008, when a democrap Congress was in place during the Bush Administration and see what those statistics would yield? And maybe see why there is some Repub Obstructionism?
eaglewingz08 (83b841) — 9/5/2010 @ 8:26 amAnd let’s focus just on the Courts of Appeals nominees, shall we? Leahy knew to screw pretty much ONLY with Bush’s appellate nominees while letting District Court nominees mostly alone. This way, Bush’s OVERALL numbers remained pretty good, deceptively so.
Mitch (e40959) — 9/5/2010 @ 8:50 am1. It’s Labor Day weekend; I’ll bet it’s not a heavy reading/commenting time period.
2. Comments are not always an accurate marker of reader interest. I thought that’s why you encouraged lurkers to comment earlier.
3. In my experience, a post of this sort may provoke fewer comments simply because you have really said it, and there is little to either add or nitpick.
4. Things that the readers agree on will always generate fewer comments than things which they disagree on. Not many people here are going to argue that no, Obama is getting shafted on his judicial nominations by the wicked Rethuglicans. If you want a truckload of comments, do a post on the question of whether Republicans should embrace liberal candidates (like Mike Castle) in the hope of getting back the majority.
Subotai (a83e22) — 9/5/2010 @ 9:25 am