Of course, nowadays it often seems that one person’s “non-controversial appointee” is the competing side’s “ZOMG, look what s/he said and how s/he ruled on THIS case!”

The confirmation process is becoming ridiculous. Friends who have gone through this say it’s a nightmare. We are losing good people because of how long it’s taking.

Presumably, the ill effects of such long delays are what the GOP desires. They have elaborate farm teams to bring up their Brett Kavanaughs, the Rachel Pauloses, the Sampsons and Goodlings. How do the Dems approach this?

Brett Kavanaugh is a good example of how the GOP approached this. With exceptional academic credentials, but little work experience, he worked at the White House to shepherd its judicial nominees through the confirmation process. Bush then nominated him to the DC Circuit, avoiding the hardships the Dems seem intent on imposing on their candidates. Despite having few of the credentials normally possessed by a federal circuit court judge, Mr. Kavanaugh’s nomination was successful.

An issue that merits more discussion, apart from the GOP’s planned obstructionism, is why so few nominations for so many open spots? The need for hundreds of such lawyers, meaning the review of thousands of candidates, was obvious. Is it the lengthy background investigations? Disagreements among screeners about desired attributes? An obsessive insistence on such conflict-free backgrounds that virtually no one worthy passes inspection?

Mr. Obama appears to be as hesitant here as he is with reform legislation. If so, that can only favor those willing to do political battle, not those who avoid it.

Very nicely said Cindy. The appalling thing is that this process is allowed to so fester, and the nominees that actually are put up be allowed to be hung out and strung out, with a buster proof 60 member caucus and a popular President. I just don’t get it.

The only thing controversial about the people Obama has nominated is that Obama nominated them.

It almost looks as if it’s a plus to be incompetent these days. Competency seems so threatening to Republican senators. I mean, look at all the Regent grads who passed easily in the Bush Regime.
I had no idea what was involved in this process, how the law firms had to carry the lawyers who were nominated, etc. Fascinating.

This is a perfect illustration of what I mean about how you will only get candidates who are shameless or have no sense of honor.

I watched a speech that What’s his name “Griffin” was it? Rove’s protege that wanted to be US attorney in Arkansas?

He spent months directly lobbying for that gig. And bragged about it in his speech. He had no sense that one is supposed to be ASKED to do it by someone else who has noticed the quality of you work.

Nope, he went around trying to pressure people into appointing him.

Shamelessly

Why is Dawn Johnsen being left to twist in the wind? Certainly there isn’t a competency issue, the woman is brilliant. And OLC NEEDS a chief. So what’s up with that?

I think I read somewhere that she actually went ahead and moved her family to DC. So, is she languishing, jobless, until somebody bestirs themselves to push her nomination?

You don’t treat qualified people like this.

Perhaps the “white shoes” – with their bloody, muddy soles/souls aren’t the right place to look for legal talent of character. The most successful litigators are always the most vicious sharks in the room, and that is made clear from their very first remarks in court. I don’t know what profession the OP is talking about… one that may have existed fifty years ago, maybe, or one that exists in the PR materials put out by the ABA, but most certainly not one that exists in the courts of this day and age.

Sharks like that don’t ever work for the public interest. You have to look elsewhere for lawyers who put others’ interests above their own.

The most successful litigators are always the most vicious sharks in the room

That has not been my professional experience. The most vicious sharks in the room tend to be those who are not well prepared, do not have a good command of the relevant law and try to steamroll over their opponents and the bench by being, yeah, sharks. They are bullies in suits, not the sort of esteemed member of the profession I am talking about.

Why? Because the GOP told its senators and representatives in Congress that they must make sure nothing got done while Obama is president. Their marching orders are to obstruct everything..and so they are.

I take it you are not actually in trial courts a lot. The most successful litigators are the best prepared litigators, not the biggest dicks.

Yes, she did move initially, but then took on another class to teach at Indiana this fall when it looked like she was being left to twist in the wind. Her case probably upsets me more than the others because she was such a perfect choice to make OLC the opposite of what it was under Bush. Given Obama’s move toward Bush policies on so many fronts, it’s no surprise that he’s doing nothing to move her forward now.

This is as much Harry Weak Reid’s fault as it is anyone’s. I suspect things would be going smoother if Chuck Schumer were Majority Leader.

I went to the same high school as Gerry Lynch so these scumbags better fucking confirm him but quick.

Book Salon upstairs with Michael Huttner and Jason Salzman’s 50 Ways You Can Help Obama Change America hosted by Toby Wollin

Exactly. If anyone needs high-profile confirmation of this, just go look at the recent Franken-Coleman election battle. Coleman’s legal team was largely staffed with local Republican party hacks; Joe Friedberg was the best guy they had, and he wasn’t the one directing their strategy. Franken’s people, on the other hand, were about as competent and well-prepared as could be imagined.

Yeah, my experience is that the biggest dicks are very often that way because they are habitually unprepared, lazy or dumb. They try to put over. Their big dickery is bluster.

As an aside, I was wrong about Adam Storch’s qualifications. Apart from his NYU MBA, he earned his CPA in two years at Deloittes, then worked three at Goldman. He has journeyman’s experience in audits and forensic accounting.

[That said, an SEC version of Patrick Fitzgerald or Elizabeth Warren would have brought more than Goldman's proprietary techniques to searching out non-compliance among America's top issuers of public stock. Which leaves the question of what it is Obama, Geithner, the SEC and Goldman really desire out of this appointment.]

Now back to our regularly scheduled programing, an overdue analysis of what is keeping Obama from nominating a more reasonable number of federal appointments to slots crying out for new leadership, from judges, to USA’s to the OLC.

You and bmaz are correct, Ms. Johnsen moved her family to DC in anticipation of becoming head of the OLC – her would be lieutenants are already in place. She moved back to Bloomington to teach for the fall term, voting with her feet about Obama’s seriousness in appointing her and/or rebuilding the DoJ.

2 outrages here: 1) That she hasn’t been confirmed. No three. 2) that she hasn’t even had a vote; 3) we don’t even know why.

But I think it also goes to the original point (as I interpreted it) that those are the folks that seem to be “getting over”. As you noted during your Franken/Coleman posts, the Rs and Coleman were trying to win the PR war while the Franken team was intent on winning the legal strategy and getting it correct for all.

Know what? I’m thinking about the end of this post. I have very little shame and think personal honor is overacted. I gave you money Obama. You know where to reach me.

The Bush regime treated process and the law with disdain, but moved consistently hard to put its people in place throughout its term. It even hired a Regent University administrator to make sure of the ideological bent of many new federal hires, not just at the DoJ.

Obama’s team, in contrast, seems to treat aspirants like Dawn Johnsen with disdain, not the system. I have no idea which they want to avoid more: the inevitable conflict with the GOP in getting their people confirmed or hiring people that might take their reform rhetoric seriously.

We have 60 seats in the Senate so whats the hold up?

He got confirmed. You went ot Regis?

Good old “Fighting Harry” Reid and his unified caucus.

The process may be part of the problem.

But the other half of the federal judiciary problem is drawing from that pool of white shoes.

Where are the public interest lawyers? The Glenn Greenwalds?

Public interst lawyers can be part of this pool. Thurgood Marshall was one. There is a judge from SDNY who was an NAACP lawyer before joining the bench. Public interst lawyerss can and do practice at the top of the profession

Oh, I know public interest lawyers practice at the top of their profession, and to my tastes, most white shoe lawyers practice at the bottom. And while I understand that there are decent judges, for every public interest lawyer on the federal bench, there are a hundred of the corporate, political hacks.

Thank you for the timely column, Cynthia, and the insights. Our country is a mess. You’d think this would be a real priority for Obama, but I guess nominations have become “many Vietnams.”

In what world are you speaking, 10 and 12? Preparation might mean something in the actual trial, but actual litigation from complaint to enforcing judgment is 98% process, and maybe 2% trial. The vaunted “white shoes” tend be ruthless, relentless, dishonest, and amoral in the muck and mire that comprises litigation, no matter how well they dress in front of the judge. And if they are corporate defense counsel, they are as good at running up their own clients’ bills as they are at obstructing and delaying. They have no interest whatsoever in getting at the truth, only in winning – and billing the hell out of the client while doing so. And that’s from 25 years of direct observation. What you got, pal?

I don’t want ANY of them on the bench.

That’s been my experience as well.

The point is, anyone who has to give up his/her seven-figure income to sit on the bench? Isn’t morally fit to sit on the bench. I have absolutely no sympathy with them at all. They are as responsible for the mess we are in as anyone else, possibly moreso, since every questionable financial deal that eventually turned to shit was blessed by one of your White Shoe angels. Feh.

There are plenty of qualified lawyers in public service who would WELCOME the opportunity to serve on the bench, and have no skeletons in their practic closet they have to worry about hiding from Senate scrutiny. The failure here is the Administration’s selection of more Wall Street hacks, just in this case it’s from Snatcha Profit et al., rather than Goldman Sachs.

Who said aything about HAVING skeletons int he closet that have to be hidden from the Senate.

I said that long delayes in the process create the false impression that there is a problem with the nominee.

Judge Lynch had over 90 votes inthe senate. There was obviously no problem with his nomination. Hell, he was a sitting judge who had previously been confirmed by the Senate.

Yet they held up his vote for 3 months. Nomiees deseerve up or down votes, promptly.

And how did taking a pay cut to do public service become a bad thing? Some people consider that an act of patriot sacrifice