(Reuters) -

The diverse slate of initial judicial nominations President Joe Biden announced on Tuesday shows the White House will be taking a bold approach in promoting diversity on the federal bench, including choosing the first Black woman to the U.S. Supreme Court.

But expect a rough ride on the path to confirmation.

Among the group are three nominees to federal appeals circuits, all Black women, and a nominee who would be the nation's first Muslim American federal judge. Some are also former public defenders and civil rights lawyers, an important factor, given that more than 70% of the appellate bench has experience as federal prosecutors and private practitioners, while just 1% come from legal aid or public defense settings, according to a August 2020 study by the Center for American Progress.

Increasing diversity on the bench is a prudent strategy for improving access to justice. It also improves the chances that the federal courts will protect various Constitutional rights of minority groups that are under assault and have regressed - voting rights and women's rights among them.

Biden's picks received almost universal praise from liberal and progressive groups who work on improving the judiciary.

Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, called the nominations "historic," and a powerful affirmation that nominees with diverse identities and professional backgrounds are available to serve on the federal bench.

"Such diversity will greatly enhance the judiciary and judicial decision-making," Ifill said in a March 30 statement. "This is an exciting and important beginning."

That said, the recent political history of judicial nominations – which is something like a bipartisan blood feud – suggests we'll see a corresponding ratcheting-up in Republicans' efforts to retain a judiciary shaped in its own ideological image.

Senator Chuck Grassley, ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said the panel "should neither be a rubber stamp, nor should we oppose nominees as a matter of course."

"As chairman of the committee I pushed the Trump administration to engage in thorough and thoughtful consultation with senators of both parties during the nomination process," Grassley told me on April 1. Going forward, Democrats and "the Biden administration ought to continue that longstanding practice."

I asked Michael Gerhardt, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law, about how things might play out. Gerhardt's research focuses on constitutional conflicts between presidents and Congress.

"I think Biden has learned the lesson that being cautious did not produce successes for President Obama," Gerhardt said. "President Biden therefore is moving faster and not afraid to put forward bold policy and judicial choices."

You might recall that former President Barack Obama's first judicial nomination was David Hamilton, a moderate, to the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It signaled a willingness to work across the aisle with Republicans on judgeships.

But that proved to be a strategic failure when Republicans tried to block Hamilton's confirmation, a kind of precursor to their refusal to hold confirmation hearings for would-be U.S. Supreme Court justice Merrick Garland, and a foreshadowing of the slew of nominations and confirmations to come during the Trump administration.

Trump was the first president in more than four decades to appoint three Supreme Court justices. He also appointed 54 appeals courts judges during his four years on office, one fewer than Obama managed in eight years, Reuters reported in January.

Not to be outdone, Biden came out of the gate with 11 federal judicial nominations – "faster than any President in modern history," the White House boasted on March 30.

I asked Gerhardt whether Republicans might counterpunch against Biden's energy.

"For Congress, judicial confirmation conflicts will be among the most intense conflict it will have to work out," Gerhardt said.

Gerhardt went on to say that confirmation of diverse judges could be especially tough because they "do not look or think like Republican senators."

Even so, Jonathan Nash, a professor and associate dean for research at Emory University School of Law, said that there are structural impediments to how far Republicans can go to obstruct Biden's effort to reshape the judiciary.

On one level, there will simply be too many nominees to block or delay, Nash said. Biden inherited 43 federal district court vacancies and two open federal appeals court seats, according to a Reuters report on Jan. 7 (More judgeships have opened since then due to retirements). And, legislators who oppose nominations risk offending colleagues, who make recommendations on judgeships in their states to the White House.

"You're more likely to see (Republicans obstruct) Supreme Court nominees, and the appellate courts," Nash said.

Seems fair enough, although stranger things sometimes happen.

Opinions expressed here are those of the author. Reuters News, under the Trust Principles, is committed to integrity, independence and freedom from bias.