Senate Republicans are filibustering a third Obama nominee to the DC Circuit Court. Democrats are once again weighing the opinion of changing Senate rules to scale back the filibuster.
For reasons that remain unclear, Senate Republicans have since
decided to block Obama’s nominees to the D.C. Circuit Court, the
country’s second-most-powerful court, en masse. “There is no reason to
upset the current makeup of the court,” argues Charles Grassley. Democrats have “admitted they want to control the court so it will advance the president’s agenda,” says Mitch McConnell.
This – unlike many of the arguments of convenience deployed in
such fights — is a perfectly blunt account of both side’s beliefs.
Democrats want to nominate judges who share the Democratic legal
philosophy, which tends to treat the Democratic policy agenda as
constitutional. Republicans want to keep the courts as Republican as
possible, because Republican judges are more likely to strike down laws
passed by Democrats.
The bluntness of the account reveals its radicalism. Previous
judicial fights have revolved around the question: How personally or
ideologically unacceptable must a judge be to merit rejection?
Republicans are now arguing that Obama’s nominating judges to vacancies
on the court is illegitimate per se.
