What makes this situation more frustrating is that it required Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - Democrat from Nevada - to break his word both to his Senate colleagues and also to the president of the United States. The last two two-term presidents, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, saw the opposition party in control of the Senate during their last two years in office. For both of those presidents, the average number of appellate-court nominees confirmed by the opposition majority during that two-year period was seventeen. So Senator Reid promised the White House and Senate Republicans that he would adhere to that precedent as a fair number of confirmations to allow during the last two years of President Bushs term.
President Bush nominated twenty-four circuit court nominees. Harry Reid promised seventeen confirmations. Instead, there were only ten. That's barely half.
Harry Reid should tread carefully. Many things in the U.S. Senate proceed on what is called unanimous consent, where no one objects to moving forward by dispensing with certain formalities and procedures. If Senator Reid continues to violate his word to Senate Republicans, they could make his job very difficult, very quickly.
President Obama should also tread carefully here. As Michael Barone has pointed out, Obama is now the only president in U.S. history to have participated in filibustering judicial nominations in the Senate. If Republicans give him the same treatment he gave President Bush, they could deny him dozens of judicial appointments.
Senate Republicans have taken a bold step in this letter, and President Obama should re-nominate these three individuals. Americans need good judges to uphold their constitutional rights, and these three nominees have the right to a confirmation vote.