|
|
 |
|
News Room
Arlen Specter Speaks
|
|
Home
|
Arlen Specter Speaks on the Floor Regarding Judicial Nominations
Washington, D.C.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008 -
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to speak about three subjects: One, judicial confirmations; secondly, the budget resolution; and thirdly, the housing situation.
First, as to the confirmation of judges, through staff, I have notified the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee that I intended to address this subject, and the theme of my comments is that we ought to be moving ahead on judicial confirmations.
We have a situation where there has not been one confirmation of a Federal judge this year. Since September 25th of last year, there has only been one hearing for a circuit judge, and that was on February 21, in the midst of a recess. There have only been two hearings that included district court judges, the one on February 12 and one other. Six nominees have been heard; four are on the agenda for this week's executive business meeting.
The comparison between what has happened with President Bush and President Clinton shows a decisive imbalance which requires prompt action by the Senate on the confirmation of President Bush's judges. During the last 2 years of President Clinton's administration, 15 circuit judges were confirmed compared to six for the last 2 years, so far, of the Bush Administration. During the last 2 years of President Clinton's administration, 57 district judges were confirmed compared to only 34 during the Bush Administration.
On the 8-year cycle for President Clinton, 65 circuit judges were confirmed and 305 district judges. And so far, during President Bush's two terms, 57 circuit judges have been confirmed and 237 district judges have been confirmed.
Now, the statistics can be argued in many ways, but I think it is hard to overcome the basic conclusion that it is unacceptable to have no confirmations of a Federal judge in the entire year, so far, in 2008. Three months have expired. It is unsatisfactory to have only one hearing for a circuit judge in the past 6 months, and last year only four circuit judges were given hearings.
Now, regrettably, this pattern has evolved over the past two decades. During the last 2 years of President Reagan's administration, the Senate was controlled by the opposite party and there was a stall. Then, during the last 2 years of President George H.W. Bush, the first President Bush, again during the last 2 years of his administration, judges were stalled. Republicans retaliated with gusto during the last 6 years of President Clinton's administration and exacerbated the warfare on judges following what the Democrats had done.
And, as we have seen in 2005, this Chamber was virtually cast asunder by the battle on the Democratic filibusters and the threat of a nuclear option or constitutional option to change the filibuster rules. It was open warfare in this Chamber, until it was finally worked out through the so-called Gang of 14. Now we have a desperate situation where judicial emergencies exist in many of these courts, and the Senate is not acting to confirm judges to fill those seats.
The Washington Post has editorialized on the subject to this effect. In December of 2007, the Post said:
[T]he Senate should act in good faith to fill vacancies--not as a favor to the president but out of respect for the residents, businesses, defendants and victims of crime in the region the 4th Circuit covers. Two nominees--Mr. Conrad and Steve A. Matthews--should receive confirmation hearings as soon as possible.
The Post further editorialized about another Fourth Circuit nominee:
[B]locking Mr. Rosenstein's confirmation hearing ..... would elevate ideology and ego above substance and merit, and it would unfairly penalize a man who people on both sides of this question agree is well qualified for a judgeship.
What we are dealing with is not just politics in the Senate. We are dealing with the rights of residents--as noted by the Washington Post, of businesses, of defendants and victims of crime--who are affected by the failure to move ahead and confirm judges. That, I suggest, is totally unacceptable.
I emphasize the blame rests on both parties, as this pattern has unfolded over the past two decades. Each time it has been exacerbated, it has intensified. I supported qualified judges during the administration of President Clinton because I thought it was inappropriate to tie them up. I thought the Democratic President was correct in seeking confirmation of his judges. Now I believe the Republican caucus is correct in saying it is inappropriate to block the confirmation of Federal judges, especially when no judge has been confirmed yet this year to the Federal courts and only one circuit court nomination hearing has been held in the past 6 months.
It is my hope that we will find a way to declare a truce. We have an election coming up in November. It may well be that there will be a change of parties--or not. It may well be that, unless a truce is declared, the opposite party will have sufficient votes through filibusters or otherwise to stop judicial nominations. It hurts the country. It hurts the people who are trying to get their cases decided. It hurts litigants.
The judicial process is fundamental in our society, and it is being thwarted by the tactics which have become business as usual in the Senate. I hope we will be able to resolve this matter. I hope we will be able to declare a truce. There is consideration being given to a variety of responses to this kind of conduct by the majority, and we all know any one Senator can tie up this body unilaterally because this place functions on unanimous consent and waivers of a lot of technical rules. That would be, perhaps, even more disastrous. But, we have to find a way out of this, I suggest, because it is totally unacceptable to continue as it is running today.
Mr. President, I now ask that the Congressional Record contain a separate caption for what I am about to say, under a resolution which I am about to submit to change the budget process.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
|
|
