The Senate has officially confirmed the 200th federal judge during President Joe Biden’s tenure, achieving this milestone about a month earlier than Donald Trump did during his presidency. However, it is important to note that Trump’s confirmations, particularly those for the Supreme Court and the country’s 13 appellate courts, have had a more significant impact.
The confirmation of Angela Martinez as a district court judge in Arizona marked the culmination of the march to 200. This milestone highlights the significance that President Biden, a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., placed on judicial confirmations. It comes after the Trump administration left its indelible mark on the federal judiciary by confirming three Supreme Court justices.
Related posts
According to Schumer, the recent 66-28 vote marks a significant achievement of reaching 200 judges. He emphasizes that these 200 judges represent the most diverse group of judicial nominations in the history of the United States.
Despite taking office in 2021 with fewer vacancies, particularly in the influential appellate courts, compared to his Republican predecessor in 2017, President Biden’s administration has managed to maintain a brisk pace of judicial confirmations.
“There is still more work to be done,” remarked Biden in a statement following the vote. “Moving ahead, I will persist in my solemn duty to select individuals who have demonstrated outstanding achievements in their respective professions, who embody the values of the communities they represent, and who uphold the law with impartiality and fairness.”
It remains uncertain if Biden will be able to surpass his predecessor’s record of appointing 234 judges by the end of the year.
In recent weeks, there have been signs of wavering in the Democrats’ unwavering support for the president’s judicial nominees. While they have generally been supportive, cracks in their resolve have begun to emerge. Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, for instance, has made it clear that he will only back nominees who can secure bipartisan support. Additionally, the two Democratic senators from Nevada are opposing the nomination of a potential Muslim appellate court judge, despite the historic significance it would hold. This decision came after several law enforcement groups expressed their opposition to the nomination.
The White House is fully aware of the challenges they face as they strive to surpass the achievement made under Trump’s leadership. This accomplishment continues to be a source of pride for the former president and senior Republicans, such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who played a pivotal role in its realization. However, filling numerous judicial vacancies necessitates valuable time on the Senate floor calendar, and with senators preparing for the upcoming election year, such time becomes increasingly scarce in the narrowly divided chamber.
More than 40 judicial vacancies exist across the country, with half of them in states with two Republican senators. This is significant because when it comes to district court judges, home-state senators still hold considerable influence over the White House’s nominations, thanks to a longstanding Senate tradition.
White House officials acknowledge that they are fully aware of the challenges they are up against, but they remain optimistic about their ability to achieve the goal of reaching 235. However, this optimism does not sit well with Republicans, who have expressed their discontent with the White House’s stance.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, expressed his disappointment, stating, “Unfortunately, they learned from our example about prioritizing lifetime appointments.” On the other hand, liberal advocacy groups are delighted with the outcomes thus far.
According to Jake Faleschini, the head of nominations work at the Alliance for Justice, he cannot emphasize enough how impressed he is with these judges. He believes that they have truly transformed the federal judiciary, not only in terms of their excellence but also in terms of their diverse backgrounds and professional experiences.
By this point in his presidency, Trump successfully got two Supreme Court justices and 51 appellate court judges confirmed for lifetime appointments. On the other hand, Biden has already selected one Supreme Court justice and 42 appellate court judges. In addition, Biden has been able to secure more confirmations for district judges who handle both civil and criminal cases. These nominations usually face less opposition and controversy.
Biden has placed a strong emphasis on increasing the representation of female and minority judges in the federal bench. As a result, out of the 200 judges confirmed, an impressive 127 are women. In terms of racial diversity, 58 judges are Black and 36 are Hispanic, according to Schumer’s office. Additionally, the Biden administration has appointed 35 judges who are Asian American, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islanders, which surpasses the numbers seen in any previous administration, as noted by the White House.
According to the White House, out of the 42 circuit judges confirmed during Biden’s term in the appellate courts, 30 of them are women. This demonstrates a significant increase in gender diversity within the judiciary. Additionally, the Biden administration has made history by appointing thirteen Black women as circuit judges, surpassing the total number chosen by all previous administrations combined. This highlights a commitment to promoting racial diversity and representation within the judicial system.
The Biden administration has confirmed more Hispanic judges to the appellate courts than any previous administration.
The Biden administration considers abortion access to be a crucial priority and a central argument for the president’s reelection campaign. In addition, the White House highlights the experience of several judges who have dealt with this issue. For instance, Judge Julie Rikelman, who currently serves on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, previously advocated for an abortion clinic in the landmark case of Dobbs vs Jackson, which led to the overturning of Roe vs. Wade in 2022. Another notable figure is Nicole Berner, who previously worked as an attorney at Planned Parenthood and now serves on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Conservatives believe that diversity is important, but they argue that it should not be the primary focus.
Carrie Severino, the president of JCN, a conservative group that played a significant role in garnering support for Trump’s nominees, believes that the focus should not be on ticking boxes with nominees. Instead, the emphasis should be on identifying individuals who are committed to upholding the Constitution and the rule of law.
According to the Pew Research Center, approximately 25% of the judges appointed by President Trump were women, while about 1 in 6 were from minority backgrounds.
When questioned about the diversity of Biden’s nominees, Republican senators expressed their concern regarding what they perceived as an excessive emphasis on “identity politics.”
“I believe that what’s most important when it comes to administering justice is having competent lawyers who are fair. This can be achieved by individuals regardless of their gender, race, or ethnicity. While there are certainly capable women, men, and people of color who possess these qualities, it is concerning when one’s primary focus is on their racial or gender identity, as well as their activism. I don’t think that’s what the American people desire to see in their justice system.”
Supporters of diversifying the federal judiciary argue that individuals who appear before the court have greater confidence in the legal system when they witness representation from their own racial or ethnic background. They emphasize the significance of broadening the range of professional experiences among judges, including those who have served as public defenders or have backgrounds in civil rights or non-profit organizations.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emphasized the importance of having federal judges who not only represent the diversity of America but also possess a comprehensive understanding of the American experience.
