A Wee Question About Republicans and the DC Circuit Court

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Here’s the latest from the New York Times:

President Obama will nominate a slate of three candidates on Tuesday to fill the remaining vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a White House official said Monday.

The three candidates are people I’ve never heard of, but by this time tomorrow the internet will be bursting with people who are instant experts on all three. So no worries on that score. Instead I have a question for the hive mind.

We already know that Republicans are going to oppose all three of Obama’s nominees, but not because they’re mere obstructionists who are hellbent on preserving a conservative majority on the DC Circuit. Of course not. They’re going to oppose them because, based on its caseload, the DC Court is too big and should be pared back by three seats.

Now, the DC Circuit Court was expanded to 12 members back in 1984, so it’s been at that number for a long time. Then it got reduced to 11 seats in 2007 by a unanimous vote in the Senate. So here’s my question: Following the 2007 vote, are any Republicans on record complaining about the DC Court being too big prior to 2010 or so? It doesn’t seem likely, since in 2005 they confirmed Thomas Griffith as the (then) 11th member, and in 2006, after a couple of vacancies had opened up, they confirmed Brett Kavanaugh as the (then) 10th member. So it sure seems as if Republicans thought the court needed more than eight members back when it was George Bush making the nominations.

But who knows? Maybe their arms were twisted and the record shows that most of them, in their heart of hearts, wanted to shrink the DC Circuit even before Obama became president. Can anyone provide any evidence of that?

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate