Estimated reading time: 2 minutes, 54 seconds

Vacant District Court Seats Contributing to Judicial ‘Emergencies’: ABA Pres. to Senate

With one of the most polarizing presidential elections well under way, partisan differences are evident in almost every facet of policy and government. Federal district court vacancies are no exception, with Republicans, Democrats and interested third parties invoking precedent and the Constitution, among other things, as evidence of how to proceed during the last few months of President Barack Obama’s administration.

Linda Klein, president of the American Bar Association, wrote a letter on Tuesday, September 6, to Senate leadership imploring them to act on a number of district court vacancies and address the growing backlog of cases. “Trial court judges do the bulk of the work in the federal court system, and litigants should not have to suffer the consequences of inaction over judicial vacancies,” she said.

The situation, she said, has reached a head, and immediate action is needed.  “With over 10% of authorized judgeships now vacant, the prompt filling of vacancies is becoming a matter of increasing urgency,” she wrote. “This is especially true for vacancies that have existed for so long and created such untenable workloads for the remaining judges on the court that the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has declared them to be judicial emergencies.”

According to information from usacourts.gov, as of Friday, Sept. 9, there are 32 federal judicial emergency situations.

Klein said in her letter that a dozen of the nominees have been waiting for more than 300 days, with another half dozen waiting more than 200 days. She said all 20 of the nominees reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration by the full Senate were found to be “fully qualified for life-time appointments” and have “overwhelming bipartisan support.”

Klein acknowledged some are concerned there isn’t enough time left in the session to take a vote on the nominees and it is often the norm to hold off on confirmations this late in a presidential election year. However, she said the ABA disagrees with those arguments. It is worth pointing out that if Congress had taken action on many of these appointments in a timely fashion, they would have been addressed well before the election.  

A judiciary committee progress report from chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, however, said the Senate has appropriately acted thus far and has been consistent with historical precedent. He said the pace nominees have been considered during the Obama administration is on par with other congressional sessions.

“The Senate has confirmed 329 of President Obama’s judicial nominees so far. During his entire presidency, the Senate confirmed only 326 of President Bush’s judicial nominees,” according to information from the report.

For Klein, though, voting on pending nominations will ultimately save taxpayer money and is a worthwhile endeavor during the waning months of the 114th Congress. “Once the 115th Congress convenes, the President and the Senate will have to begin the entire process again to fill the same vacancies that could be filled today,” she wrote. She suggested scheduling as many as six confirmation hearings at a time, as was the case in September of 2011, to expedite the process.

She also pointed to history to bolster her cause and said according to a January report from the Congressional Research Service, nine district court nominees were confirmed in October of President Ronald Reagan’s the last year, four in October of President Bill Clinton’s last year; and 10 in September of George W. Bush’s last year in office.

For a list of pending judicial nominations, visit here.

Read 3970 times
Rate this item
(0 votes)

Visit other PMG Sites: