Judicial Nominations Update –
        FINAL Numbers For 107^th Congress

. . . As Senate Confirms 100^th Bush Judicial Nominee

__________________________

“WASHINGTON -- The Senate quit for the year Wednesday having confirmed 72 new judges appointed by President Bush, the best one-year record since 1994 for White House judicial nominees.”

– Los Angeles Times, Thurs., Nov. 21, 2002

(100 in all for the six months of Democratic control in 2001 and for 2002)

_______________________

AT-A-GLANCE FACTS ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS --

[FINAL for 107^th Congress; numbers used are for District and Circuit Courts and for nominees to those courts
(does not include the one nomination to the Trade Court)]

Democratic Senate: Far Faster, Far Fairer On Judicial Nominations

[Since the Senate changeover in July 2001, the Democratic-led Judiciary Committee and Senate have acted far faster on judicial nominations than their predecessors did in the previous six years of their tenure, doing more in 16 months than Republicans did in the previous 30 months. The Democratic-led Judiciary Committee also opened the process to the public and the press (making blue slips public) and restored steadiness to the hearing process (hearings every month of Democratic control, even during an August recess period).  The Democratic-led Senate confirmed 100 of President Bush’s judicial nominees, more than a Republican Senate confirmed for President Reagan in his first two full years in office (89) and more than were confirmed for President George H.W. Bush in the first two full years in office (70), and even though Democrats had only 16 months, not 24, to achieve that.  In 2002 alone, the Democratic-led Senate confirmed 72 judicial nominees.  This exceeds the number of confirmations in any year of the prior years of Republican control, with the 56 district and circuit judges confirmed in 1995; 17 judges (and no circuit judges) confirmed in all of 1996; 36 judges confirmed in all of 1997; 64 judges confirmed in 1998; 34 judges confirmed in all of 1999; and the 39 judges confirmed in all of 2000.  Even the fiercest partisans understand that the raw numbers, not percentages, reflect the true work of the committee, and overall numbers, not percentages, also are what is important to the work of the federal judiciary.  The previous Republican Senate iced nearly 60 of President Clinton’s nominees by denying them hearings and votes, after waits as long as four years.]

NOMINATIONS SUBMITTED:

President Bush has submitted 130 District Court (98) and Circuit Court (32) nominations, some only recently. Early in President George W. Bush’s term, in a major departure from the practice followed by previous presidents, the White House front-loaded the pipeline with Circuit Court nominations, many of them controversial.  At the time, Administration officials said their goal was to get as many ideologically chosen Circuit Court picks on the Senate’s plate as early as possible, in case the Senate changed hands, which it later did.

HEARINGS:

The Judiciary Committee has had hearings on 103 of the 114 eligible for hearings out of the 130 District and Circuit Court nominations made. Of the 27 who did not have hearings, only 11 had completed files and were eligible for hearings (ABA peer-review reports, blue slips returned) by the time Congress adjourned.  The Judiciary Committee therefore had hearings on 90 percent of judicial nominees who were eligible for hearings.

COMMITTEE VOTES AND CONFIRMATIONS:

In the 16 months of Democratic control of the Judiciary Committee, the committee has voted on 102 judicial nominations and approved 100 (the two not approved due to their records of activism on the bench were Charles Pickering Sr., to the 5^th Circuit, and Priscilla Owen, also to the 5^th Circuit).  THE SENATE NOW HAS CONFIRMED ALL 100, with none remaining on the Senate calendar.

VACANCIES:

There currently are 59 judicial vacancies on the District and Circuit Courts (25 Circuit, 34 District). Democrats inherited 110 vacancies at the time of the Senate reorganization in July 2001, after the Senate changeover. Since then there have been another 50 vacancies, for a total of 160 vacancies that the Judiciary Committee has worked steadily to fill.  With the 100 confirmations, if no new vacancies had arisen, there would be only 10 vacancies on the courts today.  By the time the Senate adjourned President Bush had not made nominations for almost half of the current 59 vacancies (29 lack nominees).  (The elevation of Judge Shedd fills a Circuit Court vacancy but also simultaneously created a new District Court vacancy.)  The White House took more than a year to name 30 of the President’s judicial nominees.

AVERAGE TIME FROM NOMINATION TO CONFIRMATION:

The Republican record: 1999-2000 -- 375 days on average (for those who were confirmed; more than half of Circuit Court nominees in these years were not confirmed).

The Democratic record: 2001-2002 – 150 days on average (even though the ABA vetting process is now on the Senate’s clock, instead of on the White House’s clock, as it was in previous administrations).

YEAR-TO-YEAR COMPARISONS:

Republican Control, 1995-2000:

1995: 56 confirmed (45 district, 11 circuit)

1996: 17 (17 district, 0 circuit)

1997: 36 (29 district, 7 circuit)

1998: 64 (51 district, 13 circuit)

1999: 33 (26 district, 7 circuit)

2000: 39 (31 district, 8 circuit)

Democratic Control: (half of 2001, all of 2002)

2001 (July-Dec.): 28 (23 district, 5 circuit)

2002: 72 (60 district, 12 circuit)

NON-JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS APPROVED BY THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE UNDER DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP:

25, to Justice Department positions; 84, as U.S. Attorneys; 75, as U.S. Marshals; 1, to other courts (an aide to Sen. Hatch, to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims). The President still has not yet made nominations to all open U.S. Attorney and U.S. Marshal positions.

------------

        *  Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), as chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 1997, said that 103 vacancies did not constitute a “vacancy crisis,” but over the last year Republicans have shifted to argue that far fewer nominees than 103 suddenly were a “crisis.”  During the Clinton Administration, Senator Hatch also suggested at one point that 67 vacancies meant “full employment” on the federal courts.  Today there are 59 vacancies on the District and Circuit Courts.

 # # # # #

While some have attempted to diminish our significant accomplishments through misleading percentage comparisons, the fact is that we were extremely productive, especially when compared to the Republican majority’s actions from 1995 to 2001.   

I recall your State of the Judiciary reports over the last several years, including your comments at the end of 1997, when 36 judges were confirmed, half as many as were confirmed this year.  I recall your praise for the progress made in 1999 and 2000, when far fewer nominees received hearings and votes than were considered and voted upon this year.  In contrast, we have achieved a steady pace of confirmations, with six judicial nominees confirmed on average per month, including one circuit court nominee per month.  This is twice as productive as in the prior 78 months when only three judges were confirmed per month on average, including seven circuit court nominations per year. 

As a result of the preceding six and one-half years of senate inaction when the Senate confirmed a total of only 46 judges to the circuit courts, we were faced with multiple vacancies in a number of circuits.  In contrast, this Senate has proceeded to confirm 17 circuit court judges during the last 16 months.  In Senate history only rarely have circuit court nominees been confirmed at such a brisk pace.  With these circuit court confirmations, this Senate has addressed a number of longstanding vacancies.  We held the first hearing for a nominee to the Fifth Circuit in seven years and confirmed her, even though three of President Clinton’s nominees to that court never received hearings.  We held the first hearing for a nominee to the Tenth Circuit in six years, and confirmed three nominees to that circuit in less than one year, even though two of President Clinton’s nominees to that circuit were never allowed hearings.  We confirmed the first nominee to the Sixth Circuit in almost five years and have proceeded to confirm a second new judge to that circuit, even though three of President Clinton’s nominees to that court were never allowed hearings or votes.  We held the first hearing for a nominee to the Fourth Circuit in three years, and confirmed two new judges to that circuit, including the first African American appointed to that court in American history, even though that nominee and six other nominees of President Clinton to the Fourth Circuit never received hearings.

In addition, we held hearings for and confirmed the first judges appointed to the federal courts in the Western District of Pennsylvania in almost seven years, even though several of President Clinton’s nominees were blocked.  We confirmed the first nominees to the Third Circuit and Ninth Circuit in two years, even though President Clinton’s most recent nominees to those seats never received hearings.   

Despite partisan attacks and unnecessary hurdles imposed by the Administration, we have persevered in cutting federal judicial vacancies almost in half.  We inherited 110 vacancies and now only 59 district and circuit court vacancies remain.  This progress was achieved notwithstanding the 50 additional vacancies that have arisen since the Committee was permitted to reorganize in July 2001. 

Vacancies on the circuit courts, which more than doubled from 16 to 33 in the six and one-half years before the shift in Senate majority last year, have been reduced to 25.  In spite of the nine additional vacancies on the circuit courts that have arisen since the summer of 2001, we not only kept up with attrition but reduced the number of vacancies and filled them more quickly than in recent years.  In reducing these longstanding vacancies we have helped fill 34 judicial emergency vacancies on the circuit and district courts. 

Unfortunately, of the remaining vacancies, 29 have had no nominee.  Thirteen of the nominees pending before Congress adjourned did not have the support of home-state Senators and several were nominated so late in the year that they did not receive ABA peer ratings in time for Committee consideration this year.     

Our task was further complicated when the Administration chose not to work with home-state Senators and when the President sent controversial and divisive nominations to the Senate.  I have urged the Administration to work with all Senators so that we can have greater consensus with regard to these important lifetime appointments.  One of the lessons of this Congress is that consensus nominees are able to be considered and confirmed more quickly.

It would have been irresponsible to ignore the number of vacancies we inherited and concentrate solely on the most controversial, time-consuming nominees.  In light of the extent of the vacancies we inherited, we tried to ensure that consensus nominees were considered immediately and confirmed.  In addition, we have held hearings for a number of controversial judicial nominees, as I outlined at the beginning of the year that we would, and we were able to bring all but one of them to a vote this year.  The President has made a number of divisive choices for lifetime appointments to the courts and they necessitated more examination and time.  None of his nominees, however, have waited as long for a hearing or a vote as those of President Clinton.  You will recall that Judge Richard Paez waited more than 1,500 days to be confirmed and Judge Helene White’s nomination languished for more than 1,500 days without ever getting a hearing or a Committee vote.

This year the Committee completed its consideration of several of the President’s more controversial nominations, such as Judge Charles Pickering, Judge Priscilla Owen, Judge D. Brooks Smith, Judge Dennis Shedd and Michael McConnell whose records have proven very troubling.  Such controversial nominations have required significant time and attention.     

Additionally, Senate proceedings were affected by the White House decision in 2001 to prevent the involvement of the ABA until after nomination.  This decision resulted in extending the time nominations were pending without completed files by several weeks. 

Even with this unnecessary delay and the considerable controversy that surrounded so many circuit court nominations, we have still reduced substantially the average time between nomination and confirmation from about 375 days for circuit court nominees in 1999 and 2000 to 150 days on average during the past 16 months.  

In addition to considering judicial nominations promptly and fairly, we have also served to address the needs of the judiciary by authorizing 20 judgeships.  In response to reports from the judiciary that there was a dire need for more resources in our border districts,  I worked closely with Senator Feinstein to provide some relief.   I am pleased to report that for the first time in 20 years, Congress passed the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act and among its provisions were those authorizing 20 judgeships.  This is more judgeships than were authorized during the entire eight years of the Clinton Administration, during which only eight judgeships were authorized for President Clinton to fill and another 10 were authorized late in 2000. 

I trust that you share my belief that the Senate’s work over the past year on judicial nominations and in passing the Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act has served to improve the state of the federal judiciary.  I hope that this letter is informative and helpful to you as you prepare your Report on the Judiciary this year.

Sincerely,

__________________

PATRICK J. LEAHY

Chairman

# # # # #

Statement Of Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
On 100 Judicial Confirmations By The Democratic-Led Senate
Congressional Record

November 19, 2002

As the 107^th Congress concludes, it is time to reflect on the important work we have performed for the American people. In the past few days, the full Senate voted on 20 of the nominees reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee in addition to the 80 judicial nominations previously confirmed. Since the change in majority 16 months ago, the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted on 102 of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees and has held hearings on 103 judicial nominations, some of whom have proven to be quite controversial and divisive. We voted on 102 of them, reported 100 of them favorably and this week the full Senate took the final step of confirming the last of these 100 nominees. This remarkable record compares most favorably to the 38 judicial confirmations averaged per year during the six and one-half years when the Republican majority was in control of the Senate.

Last week on the Senate floor, the Democratic-led Senate confirmed more judges in just one day that the Republican majority allowed to be confirmed in the entire 1996 session. In that year, the Republican majority allowed only 17 district court judges to be confirmed all year and would not confirm any circuit court nominees, not one. In contrast, last Thursday the Senate acted to confirm 17 district court nominations and, in addition, another circuit court nominee. In all, the Senate has confirmed 17 circuit court nominees and 83 district court nominees in just 16 months. That should put our historic demonstration of bipartisanship toward this President’s judicial nominees in perspective.

The hard, thankless but steady work of the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee has served to reduce judicial vacancies substantially during these last 16 months. We inherited 110 vacancies. Today, after 100 district and circuit court confirmations, those vacancies number only 58–and that takes into account the additional 47 vacancies that have arisen since the shift in majority. Without those additional vacancies, we would have reduced our inherited judicial vacancies to 10.

When Senator Hatch was Chairman of the Committee and a Democratic President occupied the White House, Senator Hatch denied that even 100 vacancies was a vacancies crisis, according to a column he wrote for the September 5, 1997 edition of USA Today. When a Democrat was in the White House, Senator Hatch repeatedly stated that 67 vacancies was the equivalent of “full employment” in the federal judiciary. As of today, there are only 58 district and circuit vacancies total. By Senator Hatch’s standards we have reached well beyond “full employment” on the federal bench in just 16 months.

Since the summer of 2001, when they allowed the Judiciary Committee to reorganize following the change in majority, we have moved more quickly and more fairly. Democrats have worked hard to confirm on average 6 district and circuit court nominees per month. The Republican rate of confirmation was half that during their prior years of control of the Senate, 3.2 confirmed per month in the 104^th Congress, 4.25 in the 105^th, and 3.04 per month in the 106^th Congress. We have moved nearly twice as fast as they did.

Partisans on the other side of aisle interested in trying to create campaign issues have proclaimed their disappointment that a few nominees have not yet received votes in Committee, despite our votes on 102 judicial nominees and our having attained results in 16 months that they did not come close to in twice the time during their last 30 months in the majority. I am concerned that the tone and language of hurtful remarks against the Democrats have been destructive. In truth, only 11 of the remaining nominees who have not yet had hearings have home-State consent and peer review ratings, and some of those peer review ratings have come in only in the last few weeks. We have thus given hearings to 90 percent of the nominees eligible for a hearing.

The vitriolic rhetoric regarding Committee consideration of the most controversial and ideologically-chosen judicial nominees is troubling to me as a Senator and as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I have worked diligently to hold a record number of 26 hearings for 103 of this President’s circuit and district court nominees in the past 16 months and to bring as many as we could to a vote, given all of the competing responsibilities of the Committee and the Senate in these times of great challenges to our Nation. We have transcended the inaction of the prior six and one-half years of Republican control. For example, during the six and one-half years the Republicans chaired the Judiciary Committee, in 34 of those months there were no confirmation hearings for judicial nominations at all. In the past 16 months, the Senate Judiciary Committee has held 26 hearings for 103 judicial nominees, in addition to a second hearing for one of the more controversial nominees. I think Democrats deserve some credit for our diligence, fairness, and bipartisanship, especially in contrast to the prior period of Republican control of the Senate.

In particular, we have held hearings for 20 circuit court nominees, confirmed 17 of them in this period and reduced the circuit court vacancies from those we inherited. By contrast, circuit court vacancies more than doubled during Republican control, from 16 in January 1995 to 33 by the summer of 2001 when they allowed the Judiciary Committee to reorganize following the change in majority.

While the opposition party continues to inflame the public with skewed statistics, the reality is that we have approved far more judicial nominees for this President than past Senates did for other Presidents. This Democratic-led Senate has confirmed 100 district court and circuit court judges, including 17 circuit court nominees. In President George H.W. Bush’s first two years in office, 71 judicial nominees were confirmed by the Democratic-led Senate. When a Republican majority was considering Senator Clinton’s nominees in their first two years working together, 75 judicial nominees were confirmed. Even when a Republican majority was considering President Reagan’s judicial nominations in his first two years only 89 judicial nominees were confirmed. Thus, we have not only exceeded the confirmations achieved when the Senate and White House were divided by political party but the number of confirmations when Republicans controlled both branches. In less than two years, just 16 months, we have evaluated, held hearings for, reported out, and confirmed 100 judicial nominees of President George W. Bush.

While Republicans continue to play base politics and inflame certain quarters of the public with their skewed statistics, the reality is that the Democratic-led Senate has acted far more fairly toward this President’s judicial nominees than Republicans acted toward President Clinton’s.

The raw numbers, not percentages, reveal the true workload of the Senate on nominations and every one knows that. Anyone who pays attention to the federal judiciary and who does not have a partisan agenda must know that. Democrats have moved more quickly in voting on judicial nominees of a President of a different party than in any time in recent history. This should be beyond dispute, but I believe that partisan advisors told this President and the Republicans that it is a great election issue for them to complain that not every nominee has been confirmed. We have given hearings to 103 of the 114 judicial nominees now eligible for a hearing (90 percent, as of today, for those focused on percentages). The remaining 16 without a hearing either lack home-State consent or peer reviews or both. Many of those were nominated only recently and are being used by Republicans to skew the percentages further because they know that the ABA is taking about 60 days to submit ratings from the date of nomination and some would not receive ratings in time for hearings this session. The Committee has voted on 102 of the 103 judicial nominees eligible for a vote (99 percent). And with the vote on Judge Dennis Shedd, we have cleared the Senate calendar of all judicial nominations rather than adopt the recent Republican practice of holding nominees over without a final vote and forcing them to be renominated and have second hearings in a succeeding Congress.

I ask fair-minded people to contrast what we have achieved in the past 16 months with the most recent period of Republican control of the Committee. In all of 2000 and the first several months of 2001 before the change in Senate majority, the Senate confirmed only 39 judicial nominees, including eight to the circuits. Even if you look at the last 30 months of Republican control, they confirmed only 72 judges. In much less time, we have confirmed 100.

If you consider the first 24 months the Republican control instead of their last 30 months, we have accomplished far more: more hearings (26 versus 18) for more judicial nominees (103 versus 87) and had more confirmations (100, including 17 to the circuit courts, versus 73 with 11 to the circuit courts ). We have reached the 100 mark for Committee votes in less than half the time it took Republicans to vote on 100 of President Clinton’s judicial nominees (it took them 33 months to reach that mark, while we reached that mark in just 15 months).

With these confirmations, the Democratic-led Senate has addressed a number of long-standing vacancies. For example, we held the first hearing for a nominee to the Fifth Circuit in seven years and confirmed her, even though Republicans refused to allow hearings for three of President Clinton’s nominees to this court. We held the first hearing for a nominee to the Tenth Circuit in six years, and confirmed three nominees to that circuit in less than one year, even though two of President Clinton’s nominees to that circuit were never allowed hearings by Republicans. We confirmed the first nominee to the Sixth Circuit in almost five years and have now confirmed two judges to that court, even though three of President Clinton’s nominees to that court were never allowed hearings or votes. We held the first hearing for a nominee to the Fourth Circuit in three years, and confirmed the first African American appointed to that court in American history, even though that nominee and six other nominees of President Clinton to the Fourth Circuit (for a total of seven in that circuit alone) never received hearings during Republican control of the Senate. Today, another of President Bush’s nominees was confirmed to that circuit. These are just a few of the firsts we have achieved in just 16 months.

There were many other firsts in courts across the nation. For example, we held hearings for and confirmed the first judges appointed to the federal courts in the Western District of Pennsylvania in almost seven years, even though several of President Clinton’s nominees to the courts in that district were blocked by Republicans. They allowed none of President Clinton’s nominees to be confirmed to that court during the entire period of Republican control. They also blocked the confirmation of a Pennsylvania nominee to the Third Circuit, among others. Democrats confirmed the first nominees to the Third Circuit and Ninth Circuit in two years, even though the last nominees to those seats never received hearings during Republican control of the Senate.

We have had hearings for a number of controversial judicial nominees and brought many of them to votes this year just as I said we would when I spoke to the Senate at the beginning of the year. Of course, it would have been irresponsible to ignore the number of vacancies we inherited and concentrate solely on the most controversial, time consuming nominees to the detriment of our federal courts. The President has made a number of divisive choices for lifetime seats on the courts and they take time to bring to a hearing and a vote. None of his nominees, however, have waited as long for a hearing or a vote as some of President Clinton’s judicial nominees, such as Judge Richard Paez who waited 1,500 days to be confirmed and 1,237 days to get a final vote by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee or Judge Helene White whose nomination languished for more than 1,500 without ever getting a hearing or a Committee vote.

As frustrated as Democrats were with the lengthy delays and obstruction of scores of judicial nominees in the prior six and one-half years of Republican control, we never attacked the Chairman of the Committee in the manner as was done in recent weeks. Similarly, as disappointed as Democrats were with the refusal of Chairman Hatch to include Allen Snyder, Bonnie Campbell, Clarence Sundram, Fred Woocher and other nominees on an agenda for a vote by the Committee following their hearings, we never resorted to the tactics and tone used by Republican Members of this Committee in Committee statements, in hallway discussions, in press conferences or in Senate floor statements. As frustrated and disappointed as we were that the Republican majority refused to proceed with hearings or votes on scores of judicial nominees, we never sought to override Senator Hatch’s judgments and authority as chairman of the Committee.

The President and partisan Republicans have spared no efforts in making judicial nominations a political issue, without acknowledging the progress made in these past months when 102 of this President’s judicial choices have been given Committee votes. One indication of the fairness with which we have proceeded is my willingness to proceed on nominations that I do not support. We have perhaps moved too quickly on some, relaxing the standards for personal behavior and lifestyle for Republican nominees, being more expeditious and generous than Republicans were to our nominees, and trying to take some of them at their word that they will follow the law and the ethical rules for judges.

For example, as I noted on October 2, 2002, we confirmed a personal friend of the President’s, Ron Clark, to an emergency vacancy in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Clark’s commission was not signed and issued promptly. We learned later that Clark was quoted as saying that he asked the White House, and the White House agreed, to delay signing his commission while he ran as a Republican for re-election to a seat in the Texas legislature so that he could help Republicans keep a majority in the Texas State House until the end of the session in mid-2003. The White House was apparently complicit in these unethical partisan actions by a person confirmed to a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. Clark, who was confirmed to a seat on the federal district court in Texas, was actively campaigning for election despite his confirmation.

These actions bring discredit to the court to which Judge Clark was nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and call into question Judge Clark’s ability to put aside his partisan roots and be an impartial adjudicator of cases. Even in his answers under oath to this Committee, he swore that if he were “confirmed” he would follow the ethical rules. Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges explicitly provides that the Code applies to “judges and nominees for judicial office” and Canon 7 provides quite clearly that partisan political activity is contrary to ethical rules. In his answers to me, the Chairman of this Committee, Clark promised “[s]hould I be confirmed as a judge, my role will be different than that of a legislator.” As the Commentary to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges (which applies to judges and nominees) states, “Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges [which] depend in turn upon their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they should comply with the law as well as the provisions of this Code.” The Code sets standards intended to help ensure that the public has access to federal courts staffed with judges who not only appear to be fair but are actually so.

Yet, he was flouting the standards set by the Code and the promises he made to me personally and to the Senate Judiciary Committee and, by proxy, to the Senate as a whole. That the White House was prepared to go along with these shenanigans reveals quite clearly the political way they approach judicial nominations. Only after the New York Times reported these unseemly actions, did the President sign Judge Clark’s appointment papers. As Judge Clark hoped, he “won” the election and so the Republican governor of Texas may be able to name a Republican to replace him in the state legislature.

With a White House that is politicizing the federal courts and making so many divisive nominations, especially to the circuit courts, to appease the far-right wing of the Republican party, it would be irresponsible for us to turn a blind eye to this and simply rubber-stamp such appointees to lifetime seats. Advice and consent does not mean giving the President carte blanche to pack the courts with ideologues from the right or left. The system of checks and balances in our Constitution does not give the power to make lifetime appointments to one person alone to pack the courts with judges whose views are outside of the mainstream and whose decisions would further divide our nation.

I have worked hard to bring to a vote the overwhelming majority of this President’s judicial nominees, but we cannot afford to make errors in these lifetime appointments out of haste or sentimental considerations, however well intentioned. To help smooth the confirmation process, I have gone out of my way to encourage the White House to work in a bipartisan way with the Senate, like past Presidents, but, in all too many instances, they have chosen to bypass bipartisanship cooperation in favor of partisanship and a campaign issue. Arbitrary deadlines will not ensure that nominees will be fair-minded judges who are not activists or ideologues. The American people have a right to expect the federal courts to be fair forums and not bastions of favoritism on the right or the left. These are the only lifetime appointments in our whole government, and they matter a great deal to our future. I will continue to work hard to ensure the independence of our federal judiciary.

# # # # #