Benches Empty, Judicial Nominees Backlog
- Feb 26, 2008 - 3
For some it’s been six months with no signs of movement. Others have waited nearly two years but have not received a vote. So goes the chronicle of many judicial nominees, whose nominations to fill vacancies on federal courts throughout the country have stalled in the Senate.
Twenty-eight federal court nominations by President Bush now languish before the Senate Judiciary Committee, with little indication that any of them will be given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote anytime soon. More troubling, 10 men and women have been nominated to fill vacancies fittingly declared judicial emergencies. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, has five vacancies, accounting for one-third of its seats.
If you agree that President Bush’s judicial nominees should not be obstructed through delaying tactics, please tell Majority Leader Reid and Sen. Leahy and other senators on the Judiciary Committee to make efforts to confirm these nominees by giving them the courtesy of simple up-or-down votes.
The Constitution makes clear that both the president and the Senate have roles in sending qualified people to our courts as judges. During President Bush’s more than seven years in office, he has faithfully exercised his duty to nominate qualified men and women. The Senate, however, has shirked its responsibility in recent months to give them fair up-or-down votes.
As compared to Senate confirmation rates under the most recent administrations, the current Senate is lagging far behind. During the final two years of the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton administrations, the Senate confirmed an average of 17 circuit court nominees. The current Senate has confirmed just six appellate nominees so far in President Bush’s final two years in office, with less than a year remaining before a new president enters the White House.
The chief barricades in the confirmation battle are two senators who sit among their chamber’s highest ranks. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made clear recently that moving nominees through the Senate this year is not a high priority. Speaking to the issue of filling court vacancies, he stated, “A new president, hopefully of a different party than the one now occupying the White House, deserves the ability to take our government in a new direction,” adding that “some nominations simply won’t be approved.”
Likewise, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has demonstrated no sense of urgency in clearing the backlog of judicial nominees. Last week, the committee held just its fifth hearing on an appeals court nominee since the 110th Congress was sworn in more than a year ago. This hearing comes more than five months since the last hearing on a circuit court nominee.
Sen. Leahy appears to be placing little weight on his comments made upon taking the reigns of the committee a little over a year ago that an important criterion for nominees is that they have the support of home-state senators. Four pending circuit court nominees have such support, yet they have not received a vote.
Other senators seem content to allow nominations to die this year as well, fearing that the current slate of nominees would issue rulings based on traditional principles. Richard Honaker, a former legislator from Wyoming who has been nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court, has been one such nominee viewed with suspicion based on his pro-life advocacy. But he has admirably stated that he recognizes the role of legislator is “absolutely contrary” to the role of judge.
The overarching characteristic of any judge should be a commitment to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. Or, as U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts stated during his confirmation hearings, a judge should act as an umpire, calling balls and strikes.
Each nominee should be judged on his or her own merits. No judicial nominee should be denied a simple up-or-down vote in the Senate. Nor should senators reject nominees based on the president who nominated them.
The confirmation proceedings standstill is sending an unfortunate message to individuals who are willing to serve our nation as federal judges. As a result, some nominees are simply withdrawing their names as nominees, rather than keeping their careers in limbo for months and sometimes years while a few senators play politics.
If you agree that President Bush’s judicial nominees should not be obstructed through delaying tactics, please tell Majority Leader Reid and Sen. Leahy and other senators on the Judiciary Committee to make efforts to confirm these nominees by giving them the courtesy of simple up-or-down votes.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Citizenship, National
3 comments (post your own) feed
1 On Feb 26th, 2008, at 5:51pm, lARRY D. Kendrick wrote:
As a voter in this country I think the politicians need to know if they are going to play games the people have the right to have them removed from their office as well.
2 On Mar 1st, 2008, at 4:38pm, Hinton H. Harris, Jr. wrote:
I believe it only fair to give President Bush’s judicial
nominees a up or down vote. What are you fearful of?
Hinton H. Harris, Jr.
3 On Mar 1st, 2008, at 9:48pm, James K. Harrison wrote:
Dr. Land,
I was very much impressed with your sprightly and incisive replys during your interview on NPR last Thursday. Keep up the good work.
Jim Harrison—Huntsville, Alabama