 |
          
  |
|
|
 As the nation nears the crucial
November 4 elections, a reminder of the importance of judicial nominations is
particularly apt. Whoever wins the
presidential race will likely have two to three vacancies to fill on the
Supreme Court. Furthermore, the U.S. Senate
still has several highly qualified appellate court nominees waiting for the courtesy
of an up-or-down vote.
As
MSNBC and The
Hill report, some delegates at the recent GOP convention attempted to keep
the judges issue on the forefront of people’s minds.
Our
friend Curt Levey from the Committee for Justice explains a strategy
for getting the remaining appellate court nominees approved by a stubborn
and partisan Senate.
Saturday
night’s presidential forum at Rick Warren’s church provided a clear distinction
between the major candidates on various issues, especially on social
conservative issues such as abortion, judges, and the rights of faith-based
organizations. To read a transcript of
the event click here. To view the entire broadcast via online video
click
here.
Sen.
Arlen Specter (R-PA) has an important
op-ed in The Washington Times calling for the Senate to do its job and
provide advice and consent on the president’s judicial nominations as the
Constitution proscribes. The obstruction
of the president’s Appellate Court nominees needs to stop now.
 Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee took a courageous stand by refusing to attend committee meeting on Thursday to protest the Committee’s lack of fairness in dealing with the president’s judicial nominees. No circuit court judges were on the agenda. Also, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell invoked the “two hour rule” for various committees shutting down the Senate for a time. Judicial confirmations are an important issue so AdvanceUSA applauds the leadership of the Senators who protested the Senate’s obstruction.
The Committee for Justice reports on the situation here.
Daniel Herbster reporting
 Probably the greatest long-term issue facing our nation is the nomination and confirmation of well-qualified, originalist judges and justices to federal benches. One organization seeking to ensure that happens is the Judicial Confirmation Network. It is my privilege to interview my friend and colleague Gary Marx who is the Executive Director of JCN.
DH: Gary, thanks for taking the time to answer our questions. Let’s start with a general question. Why is the issue of judges so important?
GM: I think that judicial selection is still the most powerful all encompassing issue for conservatives. There will be times where an issue like immigration will become red-hot but a judge can come along and single handedly ignore the constitution and the law at will and impose their own view of immigration laws upon a state or the nation. Conservatives now understand that no matter whether you are a social, economic, or national security conservative we all unite around the need to have judges who will be faithful to the text of the constitution. Conservatives understand just how the Supreme Court and constitutionalist judges impact our children and grand children. Supreme Court nominations are perhaps the longest lasting legacy of every U.S. president.
DH: How is the Judicial Confirmation Network involved in this issue?
GM: During the Roberts and Alito confirmation battles, the Judicial Confirmation Network built a network or grassroots leaders in key states to pressure Senators to support a fair up-or-down vote and confirm these constitutionalist judicial nominees.
DH: How would you describe a good justice or judge? What kinds of characteristics or qualities define a solid judicial nominee?
Yesterday a number of Senators held hearings to discuss the slow pace of judicial nominations and of the dangerous vacancies on federal appellate courts. Laura Donovan reports at Townhall.
Also, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell released a statement about the hearings which you can read in full here.
Considering the amount of power federal courts have obtained for themselves, appointing and confirming well-qualified, constitutionalist judges to federal benches should be a top priority.
The
brilliant economist Thomas Sowell provides a crucial reminder of the
importance of considering Supreme Court nominees when contemplating a presidential
election. Excerpt:
Recent landmark court decisions are
reminders that elections are not just about putting candidates in office for a
few years.
The judges that elected officials put on
the bench can remake the legal landscape, change fundamental social policies
and even affect the way wars are fought, long after those who appointed them
have served their terms and passed from the scene.
Our
friends at the Committee for Justice keep
the judges issue on the forefront of our minds. Excerpt:
Has Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy no
shame when it comes to judicial nominees? We’ll find out in the coming months
by watching whether he continues to deny a committee vote to D.C. Circuit
nominee Peter Keisler, a former Assistant Attorney General at the Justice
Department. Never mind that Keisler was nominated to the D.C. Circuit two years
ago and testified to rave reviews at his Judiciary Committee hearing in August
2006. Sadly, we’ve become all too accustomed to such outrageous delays since
Senate Democrats announced plans to block judicial nominees for purely
ideological reasons back in 2001.
Read
the full
article here.
On
Tuesday, June 24 the Senate confirmed two of President Bush’s nominees to the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. While
this is a step in the right direction, the Senate still has much work to do in
order to fulfill its constitutional duty to provide advice and consent for the
president’s judicial nominees. The
following is a statement from the White House:
Yesterday [June 24], the Senate confirmed
Raymond Kethledge and Helene White to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit and Stephen Murphy to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan. I appreciate the Senate's work on filling these important seats,
which had been declared judicial emergencies.
For the first time in my Administration,
the Sixth Circuit will now have a full court to address important issues facing
the residents of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Unfortunately, too
many other Federal judgeships across America remain vacant. This is
unacceptable and inexcusable. Since the beginning of the 110th Congress, the
Senate has confirmed only 10 circuit court nominees. In the last two years of
the past three Administrations, the Senate has confirmed an average of 17
circuit court judges. I strongly urge the Senate to hold hearings and votes on
the 28 pending circuit and district court nominations to ensure that our Nation
has a fully functioning judicial system.
Also,
AdvanceUSA has updated its judges graph to reflect this new information. As can be seen from this graph, the Senate
still has a ways to go in order to give proper treatment to the president’s
nominees (especially the highly qualified nominees who have been waiting the
longest).
Click here to view a
larger version.
Judge
Conrad has been waiting 338 days for his Congressional hearings since President
Bush first nominated him for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Several senators and organizations rallied in
support of Judge Conrad. The Gannett
News Service and Media
General report.
The Republican Leader of the Senate is continuing delaying tactics on the Senate floor in order to force the majority leadership to fulfill their commitments on judicial nominees. Who sits on our federal benches is an issue which will impact our nation for decades. It is important that the president’s well-qualified judicial nominees receive fair hearings and fair up-or-down votes. Call both your senators today and urge them to put pressure on Senators Reid (D-NV) and Leahy (D-VT) to fulfill their commitments and follow their constitutional duty by treating President Bush’s judicial nominees fairly.
Here is Sen. McConnell in his own words:
…But comity also requires the Majority to treat the Minority fairly, which means, at a minimum, that the Majority needs to keep its commitments to the Minority.
If commitments in this Body are not kept, then comity breaks down, and if that occurs, the Minority will not routinely grant consent to those matters that it typically does. In this case, we have unfulfilled commitments with respect to treating circuit court nominees fairly.
It is the middle of June, and the Senate has only confirmed eight circuit court nominees. This is less than half the number that the Majority Leader and I agreed to. And it is barely half the number of circuit court nominees that a Republican Senate confirmed in President Clinton’s final Congress.
More troubling, the Chairman has threatened to soon stop confirming circuit court nominees altogether.
The Republican Conference does not consider this lack of progress and thinly-veiled threat to be in good faith. Not surprisingly, it is therefore not inclined to continue to freely give its consent to matters that are of importance to the Majority.
That’s the way things work around here. As I’ve said before, the Senate works best when there is a spirit of cooperation. Absent that spirit, the Minority will be compelled to protect its rights using all the protections that are afforded it in the Senate Rules.
There is any easy solution to this problem: the Majority needs to start confirming circuit court nominees, at least those who meet the Chairman’s own criteria. And it seems to me that before the Committee spends its time creating new vacancies, it needs to work on filling the vacancies that exist. Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee is moving at a glacial pace to do so.
It has only held two circuit court hearings this year, and before that, it hadn’t held a single one since last September. And we have no indication that it’s going to pick up the pace. There are several outstanding nominees who have been sitting in the Committee who meet the Chairman’s criteria, and until they are treated fairly, the Majority will find our cooperation increasingly hard to come by.
AdvanceUSA applauds the courage and leadership displayed by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and others in holding Senate leadership accountable for their broken promises and lack of progress in giving the president’s judicial nominations hearings or fair up-or-down votes. Appointing judges to the bench who understand the limits of their authority and who will respect and uphold the Constitution is one of the most crucial issues facing our nation and we cannot allow partisan politics to distort the judicial nomination process. The Committee for Justice reports.
Sandy Froman also comments on the situation at Townhall.com and provides some helpful historical and constitutional perspective. Excerpt:
The Constitution gives the president the authority to nominate judges, and the Senate the power to confirm them. The Founding Fathers made it clear that the president’s appointment power was broad and the Senate’s role was limited. The Senate was only to ensure that the president’s nominee was a person of fit character. As Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist No. 76, the Senate should rarely withhold approval and only when there are extreme reasons, such as the nomination of an unqualified friend or family member.
For 200 years that was usually the way it worked. The Senate only denied confirmation if there were problems with a nominee’s education, experience, or integrity. Otherwise nominees were confirmed regardless of their political beliefs. That’s why conservative Antonin Scalia was confirmed to the Supreme Court 98-0, and liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3. They were top graduates from top law schools, with stellar careers as federal appellate judges and good character.
But things have gone badly astray...
AdvanceUSA certainly hopes so. It appears Senate Republican Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-KY) is fed up with broken promises by Majority Leader Harry Reid
(D-NV). In remarks on the Senate floor today
McConnell promised that Senate “Democrats
will not be allowed to shirk their commitments on judicial nominations.” Sen. McConnell demonstrated his seriousness
by objecting to a common Senate parliamentary procedure which allows senators
to propose amendments without having the entire text read on the floor. McConnell’s move forced the Senate clerk to
read the entire 491 page document and hopefully was just a foretaste of measure
which will be taken to force action on judges.
We
encourage Sen. McConnell to take whatever legitimate means are necessary to
force the U.S. Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty to provide advice and
consent to the president on crucial judicial nominations.
For
more information on judicial nominations click
here.
Yesterday, Steven Agee
was appointed to the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
President Bush issued a statement expressing his gratefulness for Agee’s
confirmation, but also firmly rebuking the Senate for its unprecedented
judicial obstruction. Here is an excerpt
from a White House press release:
Unfortunately, many of my other judicial
nominees have not received a timely confirmation process and their nominations
have been pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee for significantly
longer.
Since the beginning of the 110th Congress,
the Senate has only confirmed eight Circuit Court nominees. In the last two years of the past three
Administrations, the Senate has confirmed an average of 17 Circuit Court
judges. I encourage the Senate to
provide all judicial nominees with a swift and fair confirmation process.
The
confirmation of Steven Agee brings the total number of Circuit Court judges
appointed in the last two years of President Bush’s term to 8 which, as our appellate court judges
chart demonstrates (below), is far below the 15 President Clinton had
confirmed by a Senate controlled by an opposing party.
Click here to see a
larger image.
In
her piece at Townhall.com Sandy Froman reminds us of the important
of Supreme Court nominees in the upcoming presidential election. This is something we can’t be reminded of
enough. Excerpt:
The political “hot button” issues of guns
and judges have become intertwined in this election year. The fate of both
issues will be decided by the candidate we elect as president. Why? Because
over a four-year term, that president will likely appoint at least two and
possibly three justices to the United States Supreme Court. Simply stated, this
year when we elect a president, we will also cast our ballot for the next
Supreme Court.
As of yesterday, Judge Robert J. Conrad has waited 300 days to be confirmed by the Senate to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Conrad has the support of both North Carolina senators and has been unanimously rated “well qualified” by the American Bar Association (that organization’s highest rating). Despite his stated desire to respect the wishes of home-state senators and despite the dangerous judicial emergency on the fourth circuit due to judicial vacancies, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appears unwilling to give Judge Conrad a swift hearing.
Tony
Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, speaks out the important
issue of judicial nominations, asking the crucial question:
Will social policy in the USA continue to
be made by panels of unelected judges with lifetime tenure, or will we have a
judiciary governed by self-restraint and fidelity to the rule of law?
He
goes on to quote Alexander Hamilton, one of our greatest but most
underappreciated founding fathers, in the Federalist Papers where he explains
the proper role of the federal judiciary when he says it has “neither force nor
will, but merely judgment.”
We
thank Mr. Perkins for his helpful piece and hope it motivates the Senate to act
on President Bush’s waiting judicial nominees.
The New York Times reports that a deal could be in the works between the White House and Senate Democrats on the stalemate over appellate judges. It is unclear whether this deal would be beneficial over all. AdvanceUSA will be watching this important issue closely.
Peter Keisler, Steve Matthews, and Robert Conrad are excellent nominees who have been waiting far too long for up-or-down votes in the U.S. Senate. The Senate needs to do its constitutional duty and consider these nominees before the Memorial Day recess.
Our friends at the Committee for Justice have important information about the recent Senate agreement on judicial nominations. There is a strong danger that the good faith agreement recently struck will not be honored. If Chairman Leahy (D-VT), Majority Leader Reid (D-NV), the members of the Judiciary Committee, and both your senators don’t hear from you about this issue, we may not see three more crucial circuit court judges appointed by the Memorial Day recess.
CitizenLink also reports. Excerpt:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have sent a second letter to Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., urging him to confirm three Circuit Court nominations before the Memorial Day recess.
Peter Keisler has been waiting 660 days for a committee vote. Steve Matthews and Robert Conrad, nominees for the 4th Circuit, have been waiting months for their hearings.
“All three of these nominees deserve prompt consideration by the Committee and up-or-down votes by the full Senate,” McConnell and Specter wrote in the letter.
Leahy said two weeks ago he would “do everything possible” to confirm the nominees by Memorial Day, but no action has been taken. Specter said hearings for Matthews and Conrad must be held by May 6 if they are to be confirmed before the recess.
For an illustration of the lack of progress on judges check AdvanceUSA’s circuit court comparison chart.
The Wall Street Journal has a piece today explaining the significance of which three judges the Senate decides to confirm before Memorial Day as part of Sen. Harry Reid’s good faith commitment to that effect. It is important that every effort be made to confirm three of President Bush’s strongest and longest delayed nominees in the time before Memorial Day, especially since these nominees would fill important and critically short-handed posts. Excerpts (emphasis ours):
Republican Arlen Specter has the right idea in requesting a discharge petition to confirm Peter Keisler on the D.C. Circuit, plus Robert Conrad and Steve Matthews on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Keisler, appointed to fill the seat vacated by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, is one of the most qualified nominees to the bench. He's done stints as acting Attorney General and head of the Justice Department's Civil Division. Messrs. Matthews and Conrad are both well qualified and would be assets on the Fourth Circuit, which hears many of the country's most important terrorism cases.
The problem is that Democrats would rather fill pending vacancies with candidates who are either their patronage choices or pass muster with liberal interest groups.
…
Democrats are already far behind the historical pace for judicial confirmations in the last two years of a President's term, even in years with an opposition Senate. A GOP Senate confirmed 15 appeals-court nominees in Bill Clinton's last Congress, and Democrats confirmed 17 in Ronald Reagan's last two years. The Harry Reid Democrats have confirmed only seven.
All of this deserves more political elevation this year, not least because it will affect the next President.
| | |