Judicial Nominations, Secret Holds

[IBCoupe]

Original Article: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/07/132714542 ... ect-courts

Judicial Logjam

During the 111th Congress, the Senate approved 62 of President Obama's federal judicial nominees — a group that included Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. But an additional 19 nominees never got an up-or-down vote from the full Senate, and 24 didn't even make it out of committee. (One nominee asked to withdraw his name from consideration this time around.)

By comparison, the Senate confirmed 100 judicial nominees during the first Congress of President George W. Bush's first term.

What was behind the logjam? Democrats blamed GOP obstructionism and the use of "secret holds," a procedural move that lets a single lawmaker anonymously block the consideration of a nominee. Republicans countered that the last session of Congress was unusually busy and that confirming two Supreme Court nominees took a lot of time.

The Senate confirmed 19 of Obama's less controversial nominees in the final days of the last Congress. Among those who didn't get a full vote? University of California law professor Goodwin Liu, nominated to sit on the appeals court in the 9th Circuit in California.

Republicans have denounced Liu, Obama's most controversial nominee, as a far-left liberal. Liu's name was among those the White House resubmitted to the Senate this week.

The concept of a "secret hold" is absolutely repugnant to any sense of good governance. If you're going to be the one Senator to prevent the Government from doing what it needs to do, you should, under no circumstances, be allowed to do it anonymously. You should be willing and able to stand up and explain yourself.

[BusyBadger]

The concept of a "secret hold" is absolutely repugnant to any sense of good governance. If you're going to be the one Senator to prevent the Government from doing what it needs to do, you should, under no circumstances, be allowed to do it anonymously. You should be willing and able to stand up and explain yourself.

Based on context I'm under the impression that you meant:

If you're going to be the one Senator to prevent the Government from doing what it needs to do, you should, under no circumstances, not be allowed to do it anonymously.

Yes?

[IBCoupe]

I meant "be allowed," because there exist no circumstances under which I think someone should be allowed to place an anonymous hold. I think you read "any" instead of "no."

[BusyBadger]

I don't know how I misread it the first time, I've read your OP twice now and can't figure out how I read it the way I did.