Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,
On Consideration Of Judicial Nominations
February 7, 2008
It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the administration is
returning to their tired partisan playbook of trying to pick a
political fight over judicial nominations.
What better time than right now, when the economy is slipping
farther off the tracks. When the President has just proposed
another budget with triple-digit deficits. When al Qaeda is
stronger and more virulent than ever, according to General Hayden
and Director McConnell, while Osama bin Laden is still at large.
When gas prices and unemployment are rising, and while Senate
Republicans try to hide from and sabotage a real debate on a robust
stimulus package. And so out comes that familiar playbook. But
their political barbs are especially hollow, in the light of the
actual progress we have made on nominations. Over the last seven
years, Congress has worked to approve an overwhelming majority of
President Bush’s judicial nominations. The argument that the Senate
slow-walked the President’s judicial nominations is just wrong.
Last year, the Democratic-led Senate confirmed 40 judicial
nominations – more than during any of the three preceding
Congressional sessions under the Republican majority. In fact, the
Senate has now confirmed 140 judges in the almost three years it has
been run by a Democratic majority. In the more than four years of
Republican control, the Senate confirmed just 158.
Yet President Bush and Republicans in the Senate are picking this
week to try to light a fire under a vocal segment of their
Republican base. Is it just a coincidence that they are rolling out
this political gambit during the week that this influential segment
of the Republican base is coming to Washington for their
convention? Or that the President is trotting out these attacks at
the White House on the day before he addresses them?
They seem to have short memories indeed as they whip up complaints
about the pace that the Senate is confirming nominations. If
President Clinton’s judicial nominees had received the fair
treatment we have given to President Bush’s nominees in the last
seven years, judicial vacancies at the end of his administration
would not have been at record high levels. In fact, at the end of
President Clinton’s administration, there were 80 judicial
vacancies, 26 for circuit courts – and that number swelled to 100,
including 32 circuit court vacancies, with retirements on the
Federal judiciary early in the Bush administration. So far, we have
reduced vacancies to below 50, and circuit court vacancies are below
15, half of what they were under Republican leadership with a
Democratic President.
Not only has the President failed to send us nominations for 4
circuit court vacancies, but we could make more progress if the
President decided to work with the Senators from Michigan, Rhode
Island, Maryland, California, New Jersey, and Virginia, to identify
well qualified consensus nominations. Instead, we get nominees like
Duncan Getchell, whom President Bush nominated last year to one of
Virginia’s Fourth Circuit vacancies over the objections of Senator
Warner, a Republican, and Senator Webb, a Democrat. They had
submitted a list of five recommended nominations, and specifically
warned the White House not to nominate Mr. Getchell. As a result,
Senators Warner and Webb opposed the nomination and it was withdrawn
4 months later.
Nonetheless, the Senate Judiciary Committee is working to fill some
of those vacancies now. In fact next week, the Committee will hold
a hearing for
four more district court nominees. And, in our efforts to make
more progress, the Committee will hold a hearing during the February
recess for
circuit court nominee Catharina Haynes. Clearly, the Committee
is making progress.
The President and Republicans in the Senate also turn a blind eye to
the progress we have made in restoring the leadership of the
Department of Justice. In the last year, amid the scandal over the
firings of well-performing U.S. Attorneys, we have seen the
resignations of the entire senior leadership of the Department of
Justice. In the last few months, we have confirmed a new Attorney
General, and held hearings for the number two and number three
positions at the Department of Justice, as well as for several other
high ranking Justice Department spots. Nominations to the Federal
judiciary are important; and so is having a functioning, independent
Justice Department.
The Committee continues to make progress where it can. I have shown
the commitment to continue to consider judicial nominations in this
election year. However, the President has not shown the commitment
to send qualified, consensus nominees to the Senate for
consideration. Instead, he has chosen to play political games with
nominations, sending the Senate controversial nominees who have not
had the support of home state senators of either party. The Senate
is making progress; the President is moving slowly. Nineteen of the
45 judicial vacancies are without nominations from the White House,
including 4 of the 14 circuit court vacancies. Seventeen of the 21
vacancies for U.S. Attorneys are without nominations. Progress is a
two-way street.
Under the Democratic-led Senate, we have opened up the nominations
process, making public any opposition to nominees. We have drawn
open the curtains on the process that Republicans, during the
Clinton administration, kept closed so tightly, enabling them to
pocket filibuster 60 of President Clinton’s best nominees. I have
not, and I will not, treat this President’s nominees in that way.
We have and will consider nominations – even those I do not support
– openly and on the record, and hopefully with the cooperation of
the White House.
The last time we heard from the President about judicial nominations
was in a speech at the conservative Federalist Society. Now, as the
President prepares to address his national base this weekend at the
Conservative Political Action Conference, we are again hearing the
same tired, political rhetoric.
I have shown the commitment to continue to consider judicial
nominations in this election year. If the President would change
course and work with home-state Senators to send qualified,
consensus nominations to the Senate for consideration, we could make
even more progress. There is still time. I hope the White House
will change its tune, tone down the political rhetoric, and work
with the Senate so we can fill our constitutional role of advice and
consent.
# # # # #