Senate Confirms 6 US Attorneys, 5 are Republican Nominees

Last night, the Senate confirmed six U.S. Attorneys, five of whom were the preference of Republicans. Traditionally, nominations for U.S. Attorneys are presented to the President by the senators of the district. If the district's senators are not in the President's party, representatives from the House who are in the same party are consulted.

President Obama. however, has chosen to ignore tradition and nominate U.S. Attorneys preferred by Republican senators, against the advice of House Democrats. [More...]

All four U.S. Attorney nominees in Texas were recommended by Republican Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn. In Utah, Obama chose the nominee presented by Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee. Obama disregarded the recommendations of Reps. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) and Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)

Yesterday, the Senate confirmed six U.S. Attorneys, including the five recommended by Republicans. They are:

  • Robert Lee Pitman for the Western District of Texas;,
  • Sarah Ruth Saldaña for the Northern District of Texas;
  • John M. Bales for the Eastern District of Texas;
  • Kenneth Magidson for the Southern District of Texas;
  • David Barlow for the District of Utah; and
  • S. Amanda Marshall for the District of Oregon

Only S. Amanda Marshall was a Democratic pick.

< Can Nancy Grace Ever Stop Spinning Fibs? | Standing Ovation for Roman Polanski in Zurich >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I tell you, J (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 10:10:55 PM EST
    It's hard for me to believe Obama has any real desire to swing SCOTUS to "the left," whatever that means these day.  Of course, my hunch is he did this thinking, hey, those Republicans will appreciate this and give me something.  Yes, Mr. President, they give you the finger.  Then again, he could really just be a law and order d*ck, and these judges represent his POV on the matter.  Either way, he's an idiot.

    This really does make the "but the Supreme (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by caseyOR on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 11:26:19 PM EST
    Court" argument for why we must support Obama a moot point. He's taking his federal court cues from the likes of Orrin Hatch and John Cornyn. Progressives need not apply. Heck, Democrats need not apply.

    Searching fo a good, viable, based in reality reason to support Obama's reelection is a fools' game.


    RE: Marshall's appointment (none / 0) (#10)
    by caseyOR on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 11:29:26 PM EST
    Thank god we voted Gordon Smith out of office in 2008. If Oregon still had a senator from each party I doubt Marshall would have gotten the presidential nod. Maybe the position would be left unfilled, but it seems a safe bet we would not have gotten a Democratic judge.

    Meant U.S. attorney, not judge. (none / 0) (#11)
    by caseyOR on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 11:38:38 PM EST
    By the way, Marshall is not a hit with prosecutors in the state. For the most part, the district attorneys would like to see Dwight Holton, the acting U.S. attorney get the nod.

    Holton has gotten big headlines for two things. One, the Christmas Tree Lighting bomb plot, and two, his coming down hard on Reed College about drug use on campus. He is really going after Reed.

    The D.A.s like Holton because they perceive him to be a bit of a hard***.  i find him at best annoying. If I hear him insist one more time that the U.S. no longer tortures or entraps terrorist suspects I will scream. His standard line is that the new administration has totally cleaned house on those issues, and a new day has dawned. Yeah, right.


    Did you hear what he sd. at the fundraiser (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 10:15:52 PM EST
    in LJ?  He took Medicare and SS off the table b/c GOP woudn't agree to tax hikes.  But, if they do, he's willing to put Medicare and SS back into the mix.  

    Was there ever any doubt? (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 10:32:38 PM EST
    Sigh... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 10:34:02 PM EST
    The whole reason you raise taxes is to SHORE UP these programs.  BTW, about that Normal Heights story, I've always wanted to research that murder in front of our house.  I called the SDPD, got an admin asst. in the homicide division to track down that it happened in summer of '96, but I left message after message for the detective on the case, just to get enough info to look it up at the courthouse, but the guy never returned my call.  Could I go to the courthouse and try to get records for murder cases solved that year?  I really just want to know what ended up happening to the killer, since it was a group of friends, a verbal fight started, one of them pulled a gun outside our window and pop pop pop, oh sh*t gimme the gun, gimme the gun...it was over.  The police were there before they could even take off and they tried to claim it was a drive by but, as I told the officer, it wasn't.  Can you just go to the courthouse and research court cases from that long ago?

    Did you try google or signonsandiego.com? (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 10:49:19 PM EST
    You could try going to records dept. at San Diego County Superior Court downtown with name(s) of defendant, and date of birth if you have it.  Hope for a non-crowded time and be really, really nice to the clerk.  

    that's what I needed the detective for (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 10:54:19 PM EST
    The admin asst. in homicide couldn't give me more info than when it happened, 1996.  It really ticked me off that this detective wouldn't return a call, when I made it clear I wasn't a reporter looking to investigate any wrongdoing, just a writer researching a small story.  Nothing.  Must have left four or five messages for the guy.

    Have you confirmed the detective still (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 11:34:38 AM EST
    works at SDPD and is still on homicide squad?

    Try this: (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 11:37:33 AM EST
    Thanks (none / 0) (#21)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 12:03:27 PM EST
    I'll give it a try.  The only name I had was the detective's.  Do you think it will work with that?  

    Bah (none / 0) (#22)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 12:11:02 PM EST
    I still need a case number or defendant name.  Detective's name got me nothing.  I'm sure what I'm looking for is there, just need the right combination for the lock. ;-)  

    BTW, this is the detective whose name I was given as having been on my case.  Looks like he was transferred out of homicide recently, at least according to the guy he arrested who posted a comment. (LINK)


    They are in the President's party. (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Edger on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 10:26:25 PM EST

    At least we know he doesn't 'cave'.

    When someone continually and repeatedly goes along on everything with someone else whom they 'claim' to be opposing, it's not 'caving', it's the plan. The intentional plan.

    I can see it now if Obama gets to (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 10:45:27 PM EST
    nominate another justice for the Supreme Court.

    Obama to the Republicans: Hey guys, I already picked two justices. It is only fair that you pick the next two.  

    I don't know why anyone would be (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 07:23:34 AM EST
    even mildly surprised by this - the signs have been there for a long time.  I mean, why would someone who has picked up where Bush left off on so many fronts evidence a different approach on the domestic legal front?  Look at the laws he supports.  Look at the level of intrusion into people's lives he supports.  

    The man's an authoritarian - how do people not get that?

    The proof of who Obama is is not in the nominations to the SC that didn't change anything - the proof will be when he gets a chance to nominate someone when it will make a difference - and there is nothing in this man's history that suggests he will be comfortable naming anyone remotely liberal to the Court.

    On a daily basis, Obama's doing his best to erase whatever line there was between Democrats and Republicans, and giving more and more people fewer and fewer reasons to believe that voting for him is so substantially different than voting for the Republican that it's even worth the effort.

    Face it - we're screwed.  Screwed.

    I think (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 02:43:44 PM EST
    you forgot the "!" after the second "Screwed."

    I would have gone with the the double Syllable, "Screw-ed!"

    Or, maybe a bold, "Screwed."

    Then, again, Scroooooooowed" expresses it even better.

    But, that's just me.


    Well, I considered (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 03:20:32 PM EST
    S. C. R. E. W. E. D.

    I didn't add any exclamation points because it's not like this is breaking news, although I guess I could have added one in the name of anger.  But really, at this stage, there's more recognition and resignation that, once again, the light at the end of the tunnel is just a(nother) train headed straight for us, it's being openly driven by someone with a (D) after his name - and there's no rescue in sight.



    Don't worry (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 03:25:25 PM EST
    He's reshaped the federal judiciary like no other president.

    The president's greatest accomplishment, which he ought to mention in every speech to his core supporters, is what he has done to reshape the federal judiciary. Nothing is likely to have a longer lasting impact on the interests of the people who put him in office than his appointments of federal judges.

    Nearly half of his nominees who have been confirmed to federal judgeships are women; 21 percent are African American; 11 percent are Hispanic and 7 percent are Asian. Less than 30 percent of his judicial appointments have gone to white men, who hold the lion's share of federal judgeships.

    In the more than two centuries since the U.S. Supreme Court was created, just four women have won confirmation to a seat on the nation's highest court. Obama nominated two of those four. He has put the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court and doubled the number of Asians who are sitting on the federal bench. This far exceeds the percentage of women and minorities George W. Bush put on the federal bench during his two terms and increases the chances that more balanced federal courts will protect civil rights gains and abortion rights, and give a fairer hearing to immigration issues.

    All this, and the fear of a Republican president watering down these important gains, should be enough to get Obama's core constituents to stop whining and turn out in record numbers on Election Day.

    You know what? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by sj on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 03:58:16 PM EST
    I'm just going to assume that every word he wrote is true as to demographics.  Which is his key piece of evidence.  demographics.

    That doesn't mean a darn thing to me.  Sara Palin and Elizabeth Warren are both women.  Let's just pretend that both were "qualified" to be named to the federal judiciary.

    Does anyone think that just citing the demographics should reassure his "core supporters"?  Whoever they might be?


    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 04:25:42 PM EST
    Those who will vote for him no matter what, will use this as an argument.

    What this argument leaves out the record number of judicial posts that have become or still are vacant under Obama.


    I'm rather surprised that ABG hasn't been here (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by sj on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 01:22:32 PM EST
    already talking about how this is a total non-issue.  And anyhow these candidates are absolutely the very, very best that could possibly be confirmed.

    I think he has ignored (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 01:49:50 PM EST
    every precedent set by anyone with a D after their name.  He is determined to be considered special, and he sure is.

    It's illegal (none / 0) (#12)
    by koshembos on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 01:50:53 AM EST
    How come W Bush got a 3rd term? Doesn't violate the constitution?

    More change you can believe in... (none / 0) (#13)
    by JoeCHI on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 04:04:03 AM EST
    ...from The One.

    6 U.S. Attorneys (none / 0) (#15)
    by Webb on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 07:38:51 AM EST
    This is the most troubling news I've heard from this administration. Don't they get what an U.S. Attorney can do. Ask John Edwards or Dan Rostinkowski. Maybe Leahy will hold them up, but I doubt it.

    The Senate already confirmed. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 08:17:32 AM EST
    I mean, who needs "advise and consent" when "roll over and play dead" works just as well?  There's no sweat and the meetings are shorter...everyone "gets along," and we all know how important that is.

    It is so much easier when there is (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 11:19:27 AM EST
    only one political party (regardless of the name) in D.C. A little kabuki, throw in a little smoke and mirrors after agreeing to the same agenda. There is more time available for fund raising and negotiating career opportunities in case you lose in the next election.  

    The only surprise, to me, (none / 0) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 11:13:01 AM EST
    was the nomination/confirmation of Robert L. Pitman, who is openly gay and had been publicly opposed by social conservatives (which would seem to constitute a sizable number in western Texas). Pitman is the first openly gay US Attorney in Texas.

    A non-surprise, is the blocking of the nomination of Janet Levit, Dean of the University of Tulsa School of Law, by Senator Tom Coburn (Obama's "Brother-in-Christ"), to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Dean Levit brings concern, reportedly, because of her background in international law--and may, possibly, bring this expertise to her decisions.  

    And then there's how long it's taken/taking for BO (none / 0) (#30)
    by jawbone on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 05:23:57 PM EST
    to even nominate judges and US Attys.

    Amazing, but this has been commented on and lamented for quite awhile.

    He had to know it's an ongoing Republican tactic to simply refuse to confirm Dem prez nominations, so why didn't he get things off the ground early on???

    I dread the answer to that....

    Obama (none / 0) (#31)
    by Lora on Fri Sep 30, 2011 at 03:37:17 PM EST
    ...is a Republican.  Now we are not continuously being disappointed.