Replies

I guess it needs to be said that the Senate can make its own roles as to how to consider matters...hence the Judicary Committee holding hearings on Judicial Appointments.

Article I states: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings..." and the Judiciary Committee was one of the original standing committees dealing with these appointments throughout its history from 1816 at its formation.

Later the Constitution says, in Article II:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The case could easily be made that the full Senate has to deal with a supreme court appointment but it seems that some discretion by the Senate was contemplated by the portion I have emphasized.

When a matter is long settled and become a matter of settled traditon and convention, the move to change it, even for supposed misdirection in the past, must be made vary carefully. I have not yet seen the historical detail of full Senate action on ALL appointments argued out with the supporting documantation and reference to US Code and similar applicable standards.

. . . but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments

You are right that the Constitutionally-provided Presidential power to appoint judges extends only to the judges of the Supreme Court (U.S. Const. art II, Sec. 2). The snippet above shows that Congress has the power to prescribe laws relating to the appointment of lesser federal officers.

The relevant cites are 28 U.S.C 44 for circuit judges, and 28 U.S.C. 133 for district judges. The statute relating to circuit judges has its roots in the first Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789.

An interesting subject. It appears that Congress has no direct Constitutional obligation to act on a Presidential appointment. However, both of the above-referenced statutes recite the following,

"The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, circuit [district] judges for the several circuits [judicial districts] as follows:"

the following text in each statute names the circuit or district, and number of judges in each.