Democratic Congress is Playing Partisan Politics
There is a disturbing trend with regard to the slow pace of the Senate's consideration of judicial nominees. Although many of the nominees have received a well-qualified ranking from the American Bar Association, they have been denied a fair up-or-down vote.We are seeing partisan politics in action which is a great disservice both to the nominees and to the American public. No other President in the history of our great nation has had to experience this kind of inaction - especially when the courts are so important to the citizens of our country. It is also unfair to those who are waiting to see what they will be expected to do.
While the overall confirmation of these conservative nominees is important, the confirmation of conservative jurists to the D.C. and Fourth Circuits is imperative because both courts have great impact on national policy. Now, before the elections, it is important that all points of view are in the court system - that is democracy in action in America.
We have one court - the Ninth Circuit - which is dominated by ultra liberal justices and is very undemocratic.
Now the Fourth Circuit Court has a 5-5 split between Republican appointees and Democrat appointees. One third of the seats are now vacant. There is a need for the nominees for this court to be voted on this year. President Bush has been allowed only 6 circuit judges and 34 district court judges. In the final two years of the Clinton Administration, the Senate confirmed 15 circuit judges and 57 district court judges. President Bush was reelected by a majority vote in the 2004 election. What is the Senate prepared to do? The people are watching. These are the people's courts.
If the Senate Judicial Committee continues to ignore this important obligation, they will be exposed to the nation as having been derelict in their duty. We are calling for immediate action now before the November 4th election. Not to conduct an up-or-down vote now will have repercussions. Americans are fair and square people.
By Mary Lou TerraMessage from Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
On Judicial Nominations
"When this Congress began, the Majority Leader and I agreed that the partisanship in the judicial nominations process was unhealthy, and we said that this Congress would be different. The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post acknowledged the President did his part to get the process off to a good start. They, and many others, complimented his good faith in not resubmitting circuit court nominees who some Democratic colleagues did not like.
"The Majority Leader, himself, said how much he appreciated the President's good faith. He said, 'I personally want the record to reflect that I appreciate the President not sending back four names that were really controversial.'"The Majority Leader said that he and his colleagues had an obligation to reciprocate and treat circuit court nominees fairly. He said, 'I think we have to reciprocate in a way that is appropriate, and we are going to try to do that by looking at these nominees as quickly as we can.' Have the Democrats treated these nominees 'fairly?' Have they, in fact, 'reciprocated?'
"Let's look at the facts. This President is in his final two years of office, and Senate Democrats hope to recapture the White House. So obviously there is a partisan incentive not to confirm his judicial nominees. That is human nature, but this situation is not a new phenomenon. President Bush is not the first President to be in his final two years in office when the opposite political party controls the Senate, and he will not be the last.
"Even with 'lame duck' Presidents, there is an historical standard of fairness as to confirming judicial nominees, especially circuit court nominees. The Majority Leader and I agreed that this Senate should meet that standard. The average number of circuit court confirmations in this situation is 17. President Clinton had 15. This Senate has confirmed only 10 circuit court nominees. What happened?
"Unfortunately, old habits are hard to break. And in my opinion, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee found it hard not to play politics. It started with the re-nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick. Judge Southwick was a distinguished state court judge and an Iraq War veteran. Moreover, he was someone who Committee Democrats had already approved, unanimously, to the district court.
"So at the beginning of this Congress when the President tried, yet again, to fill a vacancy on the Fifth Circuit that had existed for his entire Presidency, he did not resubmit a nominee who Democrats opposed. Instead, he quite reasonably nominated someone who Committee Democrats had already approved: Leslie Southwick. How did Judiciary Committee Democrats respond? With one exception, they did an about face and actually tried to filibuster Judge Southwick's nomination.
"Unfortunately, Judge Southwick isn't the only consensus nominee who became 'controversial.' Judge Robert Conrad is the Chief Judge of a federal district court in North Carolina. The Senate has already approved him to important positions twice: first, as the chief federal law enforcement officer in North Carolina, and then to a lifetime position on the federal trial bench.
"In addition, the American Bar Association gave Judge Conrad its highest rating, unanimously well qualified. And former Attorney General Janet Reno called him 'an excellent prosecutor,' and said she was 'impressed with his judgment . . . and his knowledge of the law.'
"Again, to resolve a dispute-this time over a Fourth Circuit seat-President Bush did not resubmit a nominee whom Senate Democrats opposed. As with Judge Southwick, he nominated someone who they had already approved: Judge Robert Conrad.
"Guess what has happened? Well, nothing. As of today, Judge Conrad has been sitting in the Committee for 365 Days without a hearing, even though he meets all the Chairman's criteria-he has the highest possible ABA rating, he has strong home-state support, and he would fill a judicial emergency.
"What is the result of all this? While Judge Conrad waits in Committee, the circuit court to which he is nominated is over 25 percent vacant-over one-fourth of its seats are empty. Its Chief Judge states that to keep up with its work, the Court must rely heavily on district court judges. In short, it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. 'It goes without saying,' she says, 'that having to use visiting judges puts a strain on our Circuit. In particular, it forces the Circuit's district judges to perform 'double duty.''
"The situation on the Fourth Circuit is so bad that the American Bar Association has made the crisis on the Fourth Circuit its lead story in the most recent edition of its professional journal.
"Now, my friend, the Majority Leader comes to the floor this morning and essentially says judges aren't important, and no one cares about them. Given the crisis in the Fourth Circuit-a crisis that is so bad the ABA is highlighting it-I can't imagine he would say such a thing. I'm sure the millions of citizens of the Fourth Circuit don't think that having their federal appellate court over 25 percent vacant doesn't matter. I'm sure they care very much. But evidently that's what the Majority Leader believes, and apparently he's not the only one in his Conference who feels this way, given the lack of action in the Judiciary Committee.
"The Committee refuses to move Judge Robert Conrad's nomination, or any other pending Fourth Circuit nominee. We are told Democrats do not support Rod Rosenstein's nomination to the Fourth Circuit-which is supported by The Washington Post-because he is doing too good a job as U.S. Attorney.
"We have another Fourth Circuit nominee, Judge Glen Conrad from Virginia. He is a federal district court judge whom the Senate confirmed to the trial bench without any controversy. He has the support of both his home-state senators. After he was nominated, the Chairman said he would move him, as long as there was time to do so. Specifically, he stated: 'I have already said that once the paperwork on President Bush's nomination of Judge Glen Conrad to the Fourth Circuit is completed, if there is sufficient time, I hope to move his nomination.'
"Well, the Chairman's conditions are met with respect to Judge Glen Conrad's nomination, too. His paperwork has been ready for a month, and it is only July 17; clearly we have time to confirm him. But yet we still have no action on his nomination.
"Our Democratic colleagues continually talk about the so-called 'Thurmond Rule,' under which the Senate supposedly stops confirming judges in a Presidential election year. I am concerned that this seeming obsession with this supposed Rule is just an excuse for our colleagues to run out the clock on qualified nominees who are urgently needed to fill vacancies.
"No party is without blame in the confirmation process. But what is now going on-or more accurately, what is not going on-is yet another step backward in the politicization of a process we had all hoped we could get beyond.
"It's the American people, especially those in the five states that make up the Fourth Circuit, who are suffering the consequences. And I'm sorry the Majority Leader doesn't think that matters."
Posts
