Goodwin Liu

Almost one in eight federal judgeships is vacant in the country and legal scholars warn that the increasingly politicized confirmation process threatens the administration of justice across the nation. Democrats and Obama administration officials accuse the Republican minority in the Senate of systematically opposing the president's nominees to prevent him from putting his stamp on a judiciary that, Democrats say, moved to the right under President George W. Bush. Republicans and conservative analysts say the stalled pace of "replenishment" is part payback for congressional Democrats' efforts to scuttle some Bush nominees and part indifference on the part of President Obama, who they say has been slow to nominate judges.

In a portent of the potential battle this summer over the Supreme Court vacancy, Goodwin Liu, President Obama's choice for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, faced a fusillade of criticism Friday from Senate Republicans who questioned his fitness for the bench. Liu, 39, a law professor at UC Berkeley, is considered among the most liberal of Obama's judicial nominees. Republicans appear poised to oppose him, but they are also using his nomination to telegraph their concerns about the president's impending pick to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Looking at Liu Re "Impaired judgment," Opinion, June 1 There is a reason that attacks like those made on Goodwin Liu, who recently asked that his nomination to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals be withdrawn, are called "Borking. " This horrible process began with the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's bizarre attack on Robert Bork, a recognized constitutional scholar whom President Reagan nominated to the Supreme Court. Ever since then, federal court nominees have been targeted by ideological opponents of the administration nominating them.

For the third time, the Senate Judiciary Committee last week approved UC Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu for a seat on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That the vote again divided along party lines suggests that Republicans might organize a filibuster of the nominee. If so, a handful of Republicans will decide whether Liu is confirmed. If they possess a modicum of fair-mindedness, they will balk at such obstructionism. This is, after all, a nominee with a distinguished academic record who has been rated "well qualified" by the American Bar Assn.

Democrats and the White House are preparing for perhaps the most divisive fight yet with Republicans over an Obama administration judicial nominee. The Senate will conduct a procedural vote Thursday on the long-stalled nomination of UC Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The motion to cut off debate needs 60 votes to pass, which means at least seven Republicans would have to cross party lines in order for Liu to receive a simple up-or-down vote on the floor.

Goodwin Liu may be poised to become the youngest judge on the nation's busiest appeals court, but he was nonetheless a late bloomer. Born to Taiwanese immigrant parents, Liu didn't learn English until he went to school in rural Florida. His parents nudged along his math skills during summer vacations by leaving problems on the kitchen table before they left for work. He wasn't a good reader, he concedes, and had to bone up on vocabulary during all-nighters with the dictionary to get an SAT score good enough to get into Stanford.

Paul J. Watford, a Los Angeles lawyer with broad experience and the support of some influential local conservatives, was nominated by President Obama on Monday to the busiest federal appeals court in the country. The choice of Watford, 44, for the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals drew praise from colleagues on both sides of the political aisle, and predictions that he would have a smoother path to Senate confirmation than some of the president's more liberal nominees. The 9th Circuit has long been the most overwhelmed of the 13 federal appellate circuits and has seen its burdens mount this year with the deaths of five judges.

The Senate's habit of filibustering judicial nominees must end. Both Republicans and Democrats are to blame. Nearly two and a half years after she was first nominated, a candidate for a seat on a federal appeals court in Washington has been denied an up-or-down confirmation vote by Senate Republicans who persist in obstructing President Obama's judicial appointments. But the blame must be shared by the Senate's Democratic leadership, which can't bring itself to repudiate the undemocratic institution of the filibuster.

After Republicans successfully filibustered two of President Obama's high-profile nominees to federal appeals courts, the president has launched the proverbial no-holds-barred effort to win confirmation of Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. And a story by Times Supreme Court reporter David Savage suggests that this time the president may succeed -- as he should. But Srinivasan's apparently easy path to confirmation doesn't guarantee an end to the bipartisan practice of blocking eminently well-qualified judicial nominees -- especially to the D.C. Circuit, a sort of farm team for the Supreme Court -- out of partisan spite or as part of a long game to take out potential Supreme Court appointees of the other party.

Alaska Supreme Court Justice Morgan Christen won confirmation to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday, ending a lengthy congressional standoff to become the second jurist approved for the powerful Western appeals court during the Obama administration. Christen's 202-day wait between her nomination and the Senate's 95-3 vote was blamed on partisan politics that continue to hold up confirmation of 20 other federal judicial appointments despite their having been cleared by the Senate Judiciary Committee.