Immigration pushback: Don't confirm Obama's judges

Tying circuit-court nominations to the president’s executive actions is a principled response because the circuit courts will likely have the final say on the constitutionality of those orders. The Supreme Court is unlikely to decide the issue before Mr. Obama leaves office, and the Senate traditionally accords the president less deference on circuit nominees than on executive or district-court nominees. A circuit-court response is also proportional because circuit nominees make up just one-fifth of all judicial nominees and a tiny fraction of all presidential nominees.

There is little risk of the public outrage that might accompany a DHS shutdown or even a fight over a cabinet nominee. Thus it will be easier to get the votes of enough Republicans—10 of 11 Republicans in the Judiciary Committee, or 51 Republicans on the Senate floor, to block or defeat nominations.

Nonetheless, denying Mr. Obama the power to shape these all-important circuit courts would give Republicans nearly as much leverage as a broader approach. Judicial appointments are an important part of any president’s legacy because federal judges serve for life, long beyond the terms of the president and his executive appointees. Judicial confirmations slow to a trickle during the final year of a presidential term, so Mr. Obama knows that 2015 is the last good year for getting judges confirmed. This also increases GOP leverage.