Skip to main content

Maybe Obama's just not a very good president

As of last week, there were 38 judicial nominees approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and waiting for a floor vote. Twenty-nine of those nominees left Judiciary without opposition, and at least three came with significant bipartisan support. Given the huge number of lower-court vacancies and this level of support, it's ridiculous that Reid is poised to accept a deal that confirms half of the nominees.

Of course, if there's anyone to blame, it's Reid for his inaction and Obama for his unconcern with the judicial nomination process. At any point during the last two years, Reid could have forced a showdown with Republicans over secret holds and their obstruction of judicial confirmations. What's more, Obama could have been much more diligent about making nominations to fill the large and growing number of vacancies on the lower courts.

Understand, that criticism above is coming from the left. And you've got to wonder *what* the priorities of the Obama White House actually are. Because everybody who pays even a little attention to politics knows that one of the big reasons capturing the White House is so important is because it's a chance to leave a lasting mark on the judiciary -- not just the Supreme Court, where Obama could hardly avoid doing his duty, but the appellate and district courts as well. *Conservative administrations are very eager to fill judicial vacancies.* And well they should be. It was a low-level George W. Bush appointee, after all, who this week put the health care bill into play by declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional. This stuff matters. And certainly, the GOP is being obstructionist. But it doesn't appear that Obama is trying very hard.

I'd love for Obama to bring about a liberal utopia. Short of that, I'd settle -- after the Bush Administration -- for simple, quiet, competent nuts-and-bolts governance. We're apparently not getting either. Where *is* the president's head?


Popular posts from this blog


I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…