- Marionville mayor ‘kind of agreed’ with Kansas City shooter’s views
- Rev. Al Sharpton’s Easter message: Politically ‘crucified’ Obama has risen again
- Supreme Court to weigh challenge to ban on campaign lies
- UNICEF launches ‘Mr. Poo’ mascot in India to curb public defecation
- Teen taking selfie by train: ‘Wow, that guy just kicked me in the head’
- Goodbye, Afghanistan — hello, Africa: Air Force to shift as U.S. exits Middle East
- Iran mulls ban on vasectomies, decrease on abortions to bolster population
- CNN op-ed claims right-wingers ‘more deadly than jihadists’
- Classes resume at high school rocked by stabbings
- ABC News accuses Center for Public Integrity of stealing Pulitzer-winning work
Judicial nominees sitting on sidelines
19 vacancies have OK of Senate committee
As if Congress didn’t have enough on its plate this hectic lame duck session — the “fiscal cliff,” Benghazi probes and the farm bill to name a few — the Senate is facing an escalating backlog of pending federal judicial nominations that the legal community says is hurting the justice system.
Senate leaders say they hope to act on many of the nominations by the end of the year. The list grew longer last week when the White House sent the chamber nominations for seven district court and one court of international trade judgeships that are vacant.
Yet the busy late-year calendar and partisan bickering means more than a handful of open judgeships may remain unfilled by the new year.
When Congress recessed in September for several weeks ahead of the November elections, they left behind 19 judicial nominations that had been approved by the SenateJudiciary Committee but that were awaiting final Senate action. Most are noncontroversial, as 17 received bipartisan support in the committee and seven have support from Republican home-state senators.
Republicans have been in no hurry the past year to act on many of Mr. Obama’s judicial picks, as they were hopeful a GOP president would occupy the White House in 2013 and appoint his own candidates.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, used this rationale to lead a filibuster in July to block the nomination of Robert E. Bacharach for the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court. Democrats said it was the first time in Senate history a judicial nominee who cleared the Judiciary Committee with bipartisan support had been blocked on the floor.
With Mr. Obama’s re-election this month, Democrats say it’s time for Republicans to drop their “obstructionism” and act fast on the president’s nominees.
“There is no justification for holding up final Senate action on these judicial nominations,” SenateJudiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, said last week. “These are not judgeships that Republicans can claim they wish to keep open in order to be filled by nominees from President Obama’s successor next year.”
“Delay for delay’s sake is wrong and should end.”
But Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the SenateJudiciary Committee, pushed back, saying the Senate has been “more than fair” to the president by confirming 160 of his nominations, including two of his Supreme Court picks. By contrast, he said the Senate confirmed only 122 of President George W. Bush’s nominees during a similar time frame.
The committee’s Democratic office has a different perspective. It says the Senate’s 78 percent confirmation rate of Obama judicial nominations (160 confirmed out of 206 total nominations) is lower than the 87 percent confirmation rate Mr. Bush enjoyed during the same period of his presidency (200 confirmed out of 231 total nominations).
Senate Democrats say the confirmation percentage for Obama administration nominees is the lowest of any president in the past 36 years.
Judicial nominees require a simple majority of the Senate’s 100 members for confirmation. They don’t need House approval.
American Bar Association President Laurel G. Bellows has urged the president to make filling judicial vacancies a top domestic priority for his second term.
“Our judicial system is predicated on the principles that each case deserves to be evaluated on its merits, that justice will be dispensed evenhandedly and that justice delayed is justice denied,” said Mr. Bellows in a letter to the president last week. “None of this is achievable if the judiciary is denied the funds or the judges it needs to do its important work.”
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Sean Lengell covers Congress and national politics and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- GOP tests Democrats on college loan issue
- Lawmakers outside intelligence loop get miffed about briefing structure in Congress
- John Boehner: Time is right to bring latest farm bill to House floor
- Supreme Court nears rulings on key voting rights cases
- John Boehner demands answers on NSA, phone records
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
By John R. Bolton
- 'Culture of intimidation' seen in Nevada ranch standoff
- Rand and Ron Paul ride to the rescue for Bundy in Nevada standoff with feds
- Fuel-filled wings, ability to swarm: Pentagon offers glimpse at future of drone fleet
- WEBER: Obamacare cuts home healthcare for millions of seniors
- UNICEF launches 'Mr. Poo' mascot in India to curb public defecation
- CARSON: Recovering Tocqueville's vision of American exceptionalism
- Nevada Bundy ranch standoff could leave dirt on Harry Reid reputation
- CNN op-ed claims right-wingers 'more deadly than jihadists'
- U.S. Navy to turn seawater into jet fuel
- GOP writes legislation to deny Attorney General Eric Holder his salary
Celebrity deaths in 2014
Top 10 handguns in the U.S.