Posted on 04/06/2002 3:45:30 PM PST by Howlin
One letter claimed that Senate Democrats' treatment of President Bush's judicial nominees "is no different than what the Republican Senate majority did to President Clinton's nominations during his eight years in office." The writer's sole example was Sen. Jesse Helms, R- N.C., blocking Clinton nominees to North Carolina's seats on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But the "facts" cited in the letter were wrong.
It was not Helms who "decided that the courts didn't need more judges." Under the chairmanship of Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Courts held hearings about staffing levels on appeals courts across the country. The evidence, including testimony from the court's own chief judge, was that the 4th Circuit's workload justified no more than 13, rather than the allotted 15, full-time judges. Helms apparently agreed with that conclusion, but the conclusion was not his. Regardless, the court is even more shorthanded today with only 11 full-time judges.
Another letter writer's claims were similarly off-base. It is true that both parties delay or block nominees by denying them Judiciary Committee hearings. When Democrats ran the Senate from 1987-92, however, they killed nearly twice as many nominees this way as when Republicans ran the Senate under President Clinton. Democrats left nearly 60 Bush nominees to die when they adjourned before the 1992 election; Republicans left one-third fewer Clinton nominees when they adjourned before the 2000 election.
The Judiciary Committee, however, did something very different when they voted to keep the appeals court nomination of Charles Pickering from reaching the full Senate. This was only the fifth time in more than 60 years that the committee has actually defeated a judicial nominee. And Republicans have never done that to a Democratic nominee.
The point is that the basic process should still work the way it was designed to work, whatever the final tally on a nominee. The Constitution gives the power of advice and consent to the Senate; it never even mentions the Judiciary Committee. The committee's role is to hold hearings and give recommendations to the Senate. That's why the committee does not actually vote up or down on a nominee himself, but on motions to send a nominee to the Senate with a particular recommendation: favorable, negative or none.
Even highly controversial nominations such as Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987 (defeated) and Daniel Manion to the appeals court in 1986 (confirmed) at least made it out of the Judiciary Committee. Even Ronnie White, the only Clinton nominee defeated by the Republican Senate, got to the Senate floor.
In Pickering's case, everyone knew he would be confirmed by a majority in the full Senate. So his opponents stooped to contorting even the confirmation process itself to get their way. That's very different than the ordinary delays and other tussles that occur when different parties control the nomination and confirmation phases of the process.
One note about the future: Democrats have filibustered Republican nominees to all three levels of the federal judiciary and have done so nearly 70 percent more often than Republicans have filibustered Democrat nominees. And Democrat filibusters are supported by nearly three times as many Senators as Republican filibusters. Now that Democrats have taken such an aggressive step in defeating Pickering, look for them to expand their repertoire to include the filibuster on other nominees.
Really appreciated the ping!
The federal judiciary is a political branch of government. It now makes only the most transparent attempt to say that it is interpreting the law. They make the law and most of the time they don't even bother to attempt to hide that fact.
Until the federal judiciary can be made answerable to the people, I don't think any more should be appointed. If they all start to die out, maybe we can get their attention.
PS: Just in case the FBI is reading, I'm not suggesting helping them along. Just letting nature take its course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.