A Proposal: Codification by Statute of the Judicial Confirmation Process

By Pickering, Charles W.; Clanton, Bradley S. | The William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, February 2006 | Go to article overview

A Proposal: Codification by Statute of the Judicial Confirmation Process


Pickering, Charles W., Clanton, Bradley S., The William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal


INTRODUCTION

There are few issues in modern day politics upon which there is little to no disagreement among members of Congress, political commentators, the media, and the public at large. One such issue relates to the confirmation of judges to the federal judiciary: the process of confirming judges in the United States Senate is broken and should be reformed.1

The flaws in the current system are varied, but each is ultimately linked to opposition to the judicial philosophy of the President's nominees. Because the Senate confirmation process is based on inconsistently-applied traditions and precedents rather than fixed procedural rules, a small minority of ideologically-driven senators have engaged in the unprecedented use of senatorial traditions, including the filibuster, to prevent up or down votes on judicial nominees - even those that enjoy the support of a majority of the Senate - leaving nominees sometimes languishing for years. Some senators, at the behest of partisan interest groups, distort and misrepresent the legal and political philosophies of nominees. Nominees to the federal bench face withering (and unwarranted) public attacks on their character and integrity. The same partisan interest groups spend millions of dollars on attack ads and investigations combing through nominees' lives in search of anything that might be used to discredit, attack, or defeat them.

As a result of this flawed process, vacancies on an already overburdened federal judiciary remain unfilled; political hostility within the Senate and between the President and Senate has reached a boiling point; nominees' lives and careers are left in limbo for months and years; the personal toll of sustained personal attacks often overwhelms both the nominees and their families; many nominees simply give up and withdraw, and other well-qualified prospective nominees simply decline to submit to such a degrading process.2 Unless steps are taken to correct the defects in the current system, the quality, integrity, independence, and diversity of the judiciary will be severely compromised. As described by one commentator, "[p]ast ideological scrutiny by senators of both parties has embittered many nominees, threatened judicial independence, discouraged individuals from enduring the confirmation process, and contributed to the vacancy crisis in the federal judiciary."3 In addition, "the boundary between law and politics has eroded substantially," and "[political necessity, not principled evaluation, is the currency in the confirmation process."4

There is little reason to believe the political battle over judicial nominations will decrease in the foreseeable future. Yet, the implementation of procedural changes may expedite the confirmation process and reduce the potential harm to the quality, integrity, independence, and diversity of the judiciary. Some propose reforming the filibuster rules in the Senate to prohibit the filibuster of judicial nominees.5 Such a proposal is fine as far as it goes, and it should be implemented if there is another filibuster of a judicial nominee. However, there are numerous other defects in the confirmation process unrelated to the filibuster, and a change to the filibuster rule can easily be reversed in the future when someone else's ox is being gored.

A more comprehensive and long-term procedural reform to the confirmation process would be a statute codifying the procedures for the confirmation of federal judges.6 The specific contours of a statutory confirmation process are obviously up to Congress to create. However, such a statute should, in our view, include specified time periods within which a nominee would receive a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a vote in Committee, and a debate and a vote on the Senate floor. The statute should also include procedures to extend the deadlines in extraordinary circumstances for reasonable but limited periods of time.

A statutory solution will provide a number of benefits to the confirmation process. …

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

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 ...
Default project is now your active project.
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.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

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

A Proposal: Codification by Statute of the Judicial Confirmation Process
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
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?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access 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

    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.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.