Judicial nominees stalled by Democratic leaders, ERLC’s Land says in call to action

By Tom Strode - Apr 30, 2008 - comment

Richard Land is calling on Southern Baptists and others to urge Senate Democratic leaders to lift their blockade on federal appeals court nominees.

The president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission said in an April 28 e-mail alert to the entity’s constituents that Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada not only should keep his promise to hold votes on three appellate nominees before the Memorial Day recess but should help assure floor action on more selections.

The federal courts are “feeling the strain of numerous judicial vacancies and a logjam of nominees awaiting votes,” Land wrote. Some appeals courts “have been declared judicial emergencies,” he said, citing the 15-seat Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has five sitting judges.

Reid’s April 15 promise to Republicans to hold votes on three appellate nominees “only begins to address the crisis of vacancies on the courts,” Land wrote.

Such a commitment places the Senate “on track with recent historical averages of 15 to 17 circuit court nominees confirmed during the final two years of a presidency when an opposing party” is in the majority, Land said. “Given the many vacancies in the federal judicial system, we need more than an average response by the Senate.”

Senate Republican leaders, however, are questioning if Reid will follow through on his pledge before Memorial Day.

On April 29, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania wrote Reid and Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont expressing concern because the committee had scheduled a hearing for only one nominee since Reid’s promise and Leahy had “strongly intimated” the panel may decline to honor that commitment.

“The clock is ticking,” said McConnell and Specter, the Judiciary Committee’s lead Republican. “It has now been two full weeks since [Reid’s] commitment to do ‘everything’ you could to confirm three more circuit court nominees by the Memorial Day recess.”

The Republican senators named three nominees who they said should receive committee action and floor votes soon. They are Peter Keisler, a nominee to the District of Columbia Circuit Court who they said has been waiting for more than 660 days for a committee vote, and Robert Conrad and Steve Matthews, selections for the Fourth Circuit.

The Fourth Circuit consists of Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina.

The Senate has confirmed seven appeals court nominees since the Democrats took control in January 2007.

There has been a confirmation battle in President Bush’s administration ever since he announced his first group of appellate nominees in 2001. Liberals have worked to block nominees they perceived as too conservative, especially on issues such as abortion and homosexuality. Though they were in the Senate minority the first six years of the Bush White House, the Democrats worked to block some nominees in committee and used filibusters—parliamentary maneuvers that prevent votes if successful—to block some others.

The situation at the appeals court level has improved in recent years, according to Leahy’s office. Vacancies on all but one of the 13 appellate courts have decreased or remain “at the same levels as they were at the end of the Clinton administration, when the Republican-led Senate left 26 vacancies, a number that swelled to 32 in the transition to the Bush administration,” according to a release from Leahy.

In his email alert, Land urged those who agreed with him to contact Reid and Leahy to express their opinions. Reid’s office phone number is (202) 224-5556; Leahy’s is (202) 224-4242. Their offices also may be reached online at www.senate.gov.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Citizenship,

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com