Poutine (wherever the hell you are):
The Senate today confirmed by unanimous consent five nominees to be US District Court Judges:

Nannette Jolivette Brown Nancy Torresen William Francis Kuntz, II Marina Garcia Marmolejo Jennifer Guerin Zipps

Eastern District of Louisiana District of Maine Eastern District of New York Southern District of Texas District of Arizona

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Senate- ... Court.html

Following the unanimous consent request the Senate voted to confirm Henry F. Floyd to be a Circuit Judge for the 4th Circuit by a 96-0 vote.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... vote=00154

President Obama's nomination of USDC Judge Henry Floyd to be a Circuit Judge is an interesting one. Judge Floyd was nominated to the USDC for the District of South Carolina by President George W. Bush and confirmed by a 89-0 vote in 2003 (Floyd is #40 in the link).
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominat ... ngress.cfm
It was Judge Floyd who ruled in 2005 that Pres Bush had exceeded his constitutional and statutory authority by declaring a US citizen (Jose Padilla) an enemy combatant and holding him without charges.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 439x282965
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2011/ ... -case.html

Among the three judicial nominations confirmed by the Senate today was that of Alison Nathan. Nathan becomes only the 3rd openly gay person on the federal bench. The other two are Judge Deborah Batts nominated by Pres Clinton and Judge J Paul Oetken nominated by Pres Obama.
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/le ... 0/13/28450

The vote was 48-44. The 48 yea votes were all from Democrats plus Independent Bernie Sanders and the nay votes were all Republican.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r ... vote=00164

As Adelante noted in another thread, part of Pres Obama's legacy may be in bringing diversity to the federal bench.
viewtopic.php?p=268256#p268256

Didn't Judge Vaughn Walker (N.D.Cal.) come out of the closet, too?

I believe the article was referring to those who are presently on the federal bench.

I corrected my faux pas.

Update for Poutine (whenever he comes back):

The Emergency Judicial Relief Act of 2011 (S. 1014) was favorably reported to the full Senate today by the Judiciary Committee on a 15-3 vote.

The bill also changes the temporary judgeships in the District of Arizona and the Central District of California to permanent.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1014:#

Cross-post.

This caught my eye last week:

I've been disappointed at the lack of progress confirming Article III judges in both this Congress and the previous. During Pres GW Bush's first 4 years in office 100 judges were confirmed by the Senate during the 107th Congress (controlled by Democrats) and then 103 by the Senate during the 108th (controlled by Republicans). That compares to 62 judicial confirmations during the 111th Congress and 47 to date during the 112th. Democrats controlled the Senate during the 111th and presently control the Senate during the 112th.
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominat ... dicial.cfm

Republican Senators are not in a hurry to eliminate all the vacancies but that is to be expected. What is frustrating is the tardiness the White House exhibits in offering nominees to the Senate. During most of the Obama presidency, almost half of the judicial vacancies had no nominee for the Senate to even consider.
http://www.uscourts.gov/JudgesAndJudges ... ncies.aspx

Some may remember Poutine and I commenting in this thread some months ago about the judicial emergency in the District of Arizona that had no nominees for months. Of the three vacancies that existed then, one nomination (Jennifer Guerin Zipps) has since been confirmed and another (Rosemary Marquez) has been forwarded to the Senate. The third vacancy has yet to have someone nominated by the President.

It's impossible for the Senate to confirm a nominee if the President refuses to nominate someone. Anyone who wants to blame the Senate Republicans for the continuing judicial emergencies can go ahead. I'm blaming the White House for not getting off its ass.

I think they share equal blame, but expected better from Obama. Considering his academic history, his contributions to the judiciary would have been among his most valuable, had he bothered making any. His tardiness is shocking and irresponsible.

I agree with your post except for the equal blame portion. Senate Republicans may be guilty of some footdragging regarding judicial confirmations, but their actions don't appear out of the ordinary for a Senate minority party. They have voted against cloture only twice during the 112th Congress on motions regarding judicial confirmations (Goodwin Liu and John McConnell). The Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member (Grassley) announced his opposition to the Caitlin Halligan nomination, but doesn't appear to have slowed other committee confirmation proceedings.

I'm upset with Sen Reid for not bringing more nominations to the floor for a confirmation vote. However my real frustration is with the President for not nominating anyone to fill approximately half of these vacancies.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... ent-senate

The nomination of Magistrate Judge Day was originally sent to the Senate on July 21, 2010 by President Obama. Day was unable to get a hearing in the 111th Congress and his nomination was returned to the President Dec 22, 2010. His nomination was then sent to the 112th Congress with that of 40+ others who suffered a similar fate on Jan 5, 2011. Day was also unable to get a hearing in this Congress and the nominaton has now been withdrawn.
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominat ... ngress.cfm
http://thedailyrecord.com/2011/01/06/ch ... elt-court/

Pres Obama sent the Senate two Article III nominations today. One is for some old dude from the Arizona Supreme Court.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... nited-stat

The other nomination might grab some Republican attention based upon this from today's White House announcement.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... -district-
The only thing worse to some Republicans is representing Planned Parenthood in a case about anything.

I don't think so. Ms. Baker's firm is a defense-management firm. (In employment litigation you are either on the side of labor or management. There is a pretty strict barrier between the two.) Here's what the Quattlebaum website says about its employment law practice:

My error Stern. After reading the White House announcement, I made an erroneous conclusion without checking any further.

I'd forgive you, JoeRuby, but then I might lose my purpleness.

Update As Of Dec 1:
Article III Judicial Vacancies
Circuit Courts---16 Vacancies with 10 Nominees
District Courts--63 Vacancies with 32 Nominees
http://www.uscourts.gov/JudgesAndJudges ... ncies.aspx

Is it an additional problem that the ABA has rated some of Obama's nominations as "not qualified?" This would justify delay in acting upon those nominations.

Most of those rated "not qualified" have been women and minorities. Should I be suspicious of bias?

I believe Obama withdrew the nominations of those the ABA found not to be qualified.

IIRC, the Senators from the states where the vacancy exists submit recommendations to the President for federal judges. I don't know if this has any bearing on the slow pace of nominating and approving. But that could play a part as well. If the Republican senators sent names that were clearly unacceptable and made threatening noises about not supporting a moderate, that could slow things down as well. We can be sure that there are some cut throat politics going on behind the scenes.

This isn't quite the case, although Senators do sometimes make suggestions. Generally, it is the other way around. The President (and governors of many states) extend what is called senatorial courtesy, essentially giving senators the opportunity to reject judicial nominees from their state (or district). Generally, the President will honor such a rejection. This is an informal process and not constitutionally required, and is much less frequently honored in the case of members of the opposing party.

I don't know what's going on behind the scenes, but would be amazed if the pugs are being rational behind closed doors when they seem completely unconcerned acting like total lunatics in public.

Highlighting mine.

Many Republicans have long accused the ABA of bias. Pres GW Bush discontinued the practice of sending the ABA the names of prospective nominees for the federal bench. This alleged bias from Republicans had nothing to do with gender or ethnicity. Republicans regularly accuse the ABA of being too liberal.

I sincerely doubt the ABA prefers white males to be judges and makes its recommendations accordingly.

But Toll's question can be taken the other way -- should he be suspicious that Obama, in an effort to promote women and minorities, might in some cases have overestimated the qualifications of some of his appointees?

In states where one or both US Senators are from the same party as the President, the Senator(s) will often make a recommendation of one or more names to the President. In states where both Senators are from the opposing party, the House delegation from the President's party will often make those recommendations. It makes good sense to notify the opposing party Senators prior to publicizing the nominations.

In addition there have been instances of deals made by the President and opposing party Senators. Some Presidents have reportedly agreed to allow the Senators to choose his nominee for one out of every three or four in return for not derailing his other nominations. A deal similar to this is reputedly why GHW Bush nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. That nomination was confirmed easier than her later ones by Pres Clinton (Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit) and Pres Obama (Supreme Court).

It's certainly possible that the President and those making the recommendations to him are guilty of reaching. The White House seems confused why many are rated lower than expected.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/us/po ... Joejzkc+3w
The names of those who were not nominated because of low ratings are not public. That makes it difficult to determine the reason why the "not qualified" rating was given.

There are qualified people out there. I want the President to find them, nominate them, then shepherd their nomination through the Senate; and I want it done gawd damn right now.