Confirming Federal Trial Judges Should Not be a Political Football
Here is an article from the AP discussing the extreme problems President Obama has had in getting federal judicial nominees confirmed.
There are 854 federal judgeships. 102 of them are vacant. 47 of the vacancies have been labeled "emergencies" by the federal judiciary due to heavy caseloads. Although the Obama administration got off to a slow start, there are now 45 nominations awaiting a vote, with two of the nominees having waited for 13 months.
The article places primary blame for this on "[a] determined Republican stall campaign," but also points out that Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (a Nevada Democrat), "has been unwilling to set aside the considerable time needed to force votes."
The article says this has been delaying not only votes on nominees to appeals courts, but also nominees to trial courts. These consist of U.S. District Courts and local Washington, D.C. courts, whose nominees also must be confirmed by the Senate because Washington, D.C. is a federal enclave.
It has been such a problem that even Republican Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker have taken the Senate floor to plead for a vote on an appeals court judge supported by both.
I disagree with, but at least understand, objecting to appeals court nominees on ideological grounds. But objecting to or delaying confirmation of trial court judges is just stupid. They don't make policy. Having open judgeships just delays the courts in promptly resolving the cases on their dockets, and inhibits the parties' ability to access the courts. Fewer judges means that all civil and criminal cases take longer to resolve than they should.
As I argue here, at a minimum there should be a streamlined confirmation procedure to fill seats on trial-level courts. Otherwise, cases sit unresolved and the country as a whole suffers for it. So get moving, Senators.
