Litigation

JAS, Partners Urge Action on Judicial Backlog

By Peter Hardin

The Justice at Stake Campaign and two partner groups urged the White House and Senate leaders today to join together and reduce a growing backlog of judicial nominations.

“The process of nominating and confirming federal judges has been politicized by both parties, damaging the integrity of our justice system,” said a joint letter by Justice at Stake, the Brennan Center for Justice and the American Judicature Society.

In addition, Justice at Stake sent the Senate Judiciary Committee a letter with 10 suggested questions to ask Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, dealing with the significance of a fair and impartial judiciary.

The three reform groups said that as of June 15, 103 Article III federal judgeships were vacant, and 40 of the vacancies were deemed “emergencies” by the federal courts. “These vacancies in the federal courts place even greater caseloads on our already
overburdened federal judiciary, and thus create potential barriers to access to justice,” the letter said.

The groups asked the White House to step up its pace for making judicial nominations and called on the Senate to end the practice of anonymous holds, a maneuver used by individual senators to block judicial nominations covertly. They also advocated an up-or-down vote, without the threat of a filibuster, on Kagan’s nomination. The letter stated:

“We believe that every administration should make the nomination of judges to the federal bench a top priority, and should make every attempt to fill judicial vacancies expeditiously. We further believe that the Senate has the responsibility to act to confirm judicial nominees expeditiously and without needless delays.”

Among the questions that Justice at Stake proposed for Kagan were the following:

• “In 1995, you indicated that nominees could and should be expected to answer questions about their views on ?privacy rights, free speech, race and gender discrimination, and so forth.? Do you still adhere to this view? If not, what has changed your perspective on this issue?
• “In Caperton v. Massey, the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment may require judges to recuse themselves in cases where they have received a significant amount of campaign support from a party in a pending case. ? What other sorts of circumstances may warrant a Justice?s recusal in a particular case?”

A Justice at Stake press release about the letters is available by clicking here. To learn more about Obama’s record on judicial nominations, visit Gavel Grab. To learn about Kagan’s description of Supreme Court confirmation hearings as a “vapid and hollow charade,” check out this Gavel Grab post, and to learn about Caperton v. Massey, click on the JAS resource page about it.

Full post as published by The Gavel on June 22, 2010 (boomark / email).