As part of our big, new redesign of the Alliance for Justice website, the Justice Watch blog has moved. To be sure you're getting all the latest news about the fight for a fairer America, visit us at www.afj.org/blog

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Senate Republicans Pick Fight Over Judges (Yes, Again)

It appears that last week’s attempts by Senate leaders to resolve the issue of federal judges peacefully were short lived. The McConnell-Reid agreement, which called for movement on three circuit court nominees before Memorial Day now seems to be falling apart. Why? No one can agree on which judges to move.

According to Congressional Quarterly, Senate Democrats have agreed to hold a hearing on May 1st for Fourth Circuit consensus nominee G. Stephen Agee, who was recommended by both Virginia Senators Jim Webb and John Warner. Republicans, not satisfied with Agee’s conservative bona fides would rather advance DC Circuit nominee Peter Keisler. Anxious still that a separate agreement between Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and the White House might fill the other two slots with Sixth Circuit nominees who have bipartisan support, Senate Republicans are pushing for hearings on conservative ideologues Robert Conrad, Jr. and Steve Matthews, both nominated to the Fourth Circuit, instead.

Feebly arguing that Conrad and Matthews have been waiting for hearings longer than Agee, Senate Republicans suggested that nominees be evaluated in the order they were nominated – certainly not traditional practice in the Senate. Besides, Raymond Kethledge, one of the nominees included in the Leahy-White House deal, was put forward more than a year before Conrad and Matthews, suggesting their actual concern is ensuring the confirmation of two more ultra-conservatives judges to the federal bench.

Thankfully, Sen. Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has so far resisted GOP pressure to move only those nominees who meet their ideological criteria. In a letter to his Republican colleagues, Sen. Leahy wrote, “you can pick fights over a few of the more controversial nominations, or we can continue to make significant progress.”


Nena Bartlett said...

If these nominees are so controversial, why wouldn't they want to just have the hearings and get the issues out there? The Senate is controlled by democrats so how does holding up judicial nominees help anything?

Alliance for Justice said...

The Senate Judiciary Committee continues to hold frequent hearings and votes on judicial nominations, reporting three to the floor just this week. The vacancy rate is at a historic low. President Bush has made a habit of eschewing consultation with home state senators and picking extreme nominees when consensus candidates were readily available. During these last few months of the Bush administration, it is not productive for the Senate to spend time on arguments over ideologues, especially when there are nominees pending who have bipartisan support.