San Diego Union Tribune

April 24, 2005

Republicans, Democrats spar over judges

By Finlay Lewis
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON – As tensions mount in the battle over federal judgeships, Senate Republicans are crying foul as they pursue their claim that Democrats have abused the Constitution in blocking 10 of President Bush's nominees to judicial vacancies.

In an increasingly heated quarrel, Democrats counter that the Senate GOP succeeded in scuttling more than six times as many of President Bill Clinton's choices for federal district and appellate judgeships during his eight years in office.

The dispute is a reminder that the confirmation of federal judges has been politically contentious since the days of George Washington. Guaranteed lifetime tenure, jurists often serve well beyond the administration that appointed them. Judges on Circuit Courts of Appeal and U.S. Supreme Court justices have a unique power to advance or defeat agendas being pursued by Congress or the White House.

"It is politics as usual, of course. That's why all these people are there – because they're politicians," said Stephen Hess, a political scientist with the Brookings Institution.

What differentiates this struggle from earlier battles over judgeships is the charge by Senate Republicans that their Democratic adversaries are trampling the Constitution by denying Bush his right to have a fair vote on nominees sent to the floor by the Judiciary Committee.

Democrats reply by pointing to statistics showing that Bush has had better luck at winning confirmation for his judicial nominees during his first term than did his three immediate predecessors during their initial four years.

Democrats say that the 10 nominees they have blocked represent judicial philosophies outside of the mainstream and that they were operating within their rights under the constitutional clause that gives the Senate the duty to "advise and consent" to presidential nominations.

During the president's first term, the Senate confirmed 204 nominees versus 164 during President Ronald Reagan's first four years; 193 for Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, and 202 for Clinton.

For the last six years of Clinton's presidency, Republicans were a majority in the Senate, giving them the power to bottle up judicial nominees in committee. They frequently did so, effectively derailing 65 of Clinton's choices for judgeships.

By contrast, GOP strategists note that Democrats used their majority power in the Senate during the first Bush presidency to block 58 of his judicial nominees over the course of a single four-year term.

C. Boyden Gray, a top Republican strategist in the current fight over judgeships, observed, "There were more vacancies (on different federal courts) left unfilled at the end of Bush One than there were at the end of Clinton."

What is different about the current struggle over judgeships is the use by Senate Democrats of the filibuster to foil the ability of the GOP to use its Senate majority to ratify Bush's judicial wishes, Gray argued.

Instead of having to round up the 51 votes envisioned by the Constitution, GOP leaders need to find a "super majority" of 60 votes to call a halt to the endless debating allowed under the current filibuster rule. Only if that move is successful can a nominee have his judicial fate decided by a vote.

Rebutting accusations of Democratic obstructionism, the Democratic staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee provided statistics showing that the vacancy rate on the federal bench is at its lowest level since Reagan's presidency. In addition, the Senate has confirmed more appellate court nominations sent up by Bush than during the first terms of either Reagan or Clinton.

»Next Story»