The Law: Must the Senate Take a Floor Vote on a Presidential Judicial Nominee?

By Sollenberger, Mitchel A. | Presidential Studies Quarterly, June 2004 | Go to article overview

The Law: Must the Senate Take a Floor Vote on a Presidential Judicial Nominee?


Sollenberger, Mitchel A., Presidential Studies Quarterly


On September 4, 2003, at the request of the nominee, President George W. Bush withdrew the nomination of Miguel Estrada for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. At that time, the Estrada nomination had been in the Senate for over two years and had been the center of a heated partisan battle. Senate Republicans had repeatedly tried to hold a confirmation vote, and each time, Senate Democrats prevented one from occurring. The president, for his part, urged the Senate to vote on all of his judicial nominations. "The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to hold an up-or-down vote on all judicial nominees within a reasonable time," he continued, but "some Senate Democrats have abandoned that responsibility in favor of partisan obstructionist tactics" (Bush 2003, 320). This was a message that the president, along with his administration, had repeatedly made to the Senate. On May 6, 2003, for example, in a letter to Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales stated that the only way to fix "the broken judicial confirmation process is for the Senate to exercise its constitutional responsibility to vote up or down on judicial nominees within a reasonable time after nomination, no matter who is President or which party controls the Senate" (Gonzales 2003).

Well before the withdrawal of Estrada's nomination, President Bush had been pressing the Senate to establish procedures to enforce mandatory confirmation votes. He had proposed that the Senate establish a timetable to accomplish that objective. Issued on October 30, 2002, the plan called on every sitting federal judge "to notify the President of their intention to retire at least a year in advance" if at all possible. After the notification or vacancy announcement the president would have up to 180 days to submit a nomination to the Senate. The Senate Judiciary Committee would then have 90 days after receiving the nomination to hold a hearing. Finally, the Senate would be required to hold "an up-or-down floor vote on each nominee no later than 180 days after the nomination is submitted" (Bush 2002, 1892). Despite the Senate's reluctance to implement the timetable proposal and the delay in confirmation votes for some of his judicial nominees, the president has not been able to create a workable solution and has instead continued to press the Senate for mandatory up-or-down votes.

Democratic senators, however, countered by saying that the president was trying to stack the federal courts with judges that are "out-of-the-mainstream." Senator Schumer stated that efforts to prevent a vote on Estrada were warranted and constitutional. "To confirm Mr. Estrada when the White House treated the Constitutional process with such arrogance would have permanently changed the advise and consent clause and given the president carte blanche in choosing judges." In addition, Senator Schumer noted, "[t]he Founding Fathers did not want the Senate to be a rubber stamp" (Schumer 2003). Other Democratic senators support Schumer's justifications. Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts stated that the withdrawal of Estrada "should serve as a wakeup call to the White House that it cannot simply expect the Senate to rubber stamp judicial nominees" (Kennedy 2003). Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy also felt that "[t]he Senate should continue to honor its constitutional responsibilities" and review fully every judicial nominee. "No President," Senator Leahy argued, "with or without the complicity of any current majority in the Senate, can be allowed to relegate the Senate to the role of rubber stamp" (Leahy 2003a). At present, most of the Democratic senators are blocking confirmation votes on five judicial nominees and have been able to effectively kill a sixth. (1)

Each side in this debate has presented arguments based on their own institutional and partisan interests. Indeed, the political ramifications in waging such a fight have apparent benefits for both sides.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The Law: Must the Senate Take a Floor Vote on a Presidential Judicial Nominee?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.