Democrats Plan Votes on Controversial Nominees, Senator Says

President Barack Obama's nominees for the federal judiciary have stalled for months in part because of heated disagreement over a handful of nominees. Now, Senate Democrats are looking at forcing votes on four of them.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said today that Democrats could move soon to end debate on the nominees. He said that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was lining up support this morning for what’s known as a cloture petition — the necessary paperwork before holding a vote to end debate.

“He’s lining up the signatures,” Whitehouse said after a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Such a petition requires 16 signatures.

Whitehouse is a vocal supporter of one of the nominees who have drawn fire: John McConnell Jr., a Motley Rice partner who’s been nominated for federal district court in Rhode Island. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is opposing McConnell’s nomination, citing his work as a plaintiffs’ lawyer on lead paint litigation and other cases.

The other three nominees whom Reid is trying to force votes on, Whitehouse said, are Goodwin Liu for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Edward Chen for the Northern District of California and Louis Butler for the Western District of Wisconsin. Republicans have targeted all three because of what they call the nominees’ extreme views, while the nominees’ home-state senators and other supporters argue they’re being treated unfairly.

A fifth nominee whom Republicans oppose, Judge Robert Chatigny for the 2nd Circuit, is pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee. A committee vote is planned for Thursday.

Though senators have many other priorities during their “lame duck” session, Whitehouse said he thinks there is time to consider the stalled nominees. Otherwise, he said, “there’d be no point getting the signatures” for the cloture petition.

Senate rules require 60 votes to end debate on a nominee or a bill, unless senators agree to waive a vote entirely. Democrats control 59 Senate seats until January unless Sen.-elect Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who won both a full Senate term and a special election, is sworn in before then.

On Monday, conservatives sent a letter to Reid asking him not to force votes on any nominees between the midterm elections and the start of the next Congress. “Any ‘lame-duck’ confirmations would be a gross abuse of Congressional authority in a last gasp attempt to perpetuate an agenda that the American people have already rejected,” the letter says.

UPDATE (3:43 p.m.): A group of circuit and district court judges from the 9th Circuit sent a letter this week to Senate leaders asking for quicker action on nominees. The signatories include 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski.

"In order to do our work, and serve the public as Congress expects us to serve it, we need the resources to carry out our mission," the letter (PDF) says. "While there are many areas of serious need, we write today to emphasize our desperate need for judges."

UPDATE (4:42 p.m.): Kirk's swearing in would drop the Democrats' majority to 58 seats during the lame duck session.

Comments

[wvanpup]

Dear Paul

Federal judges can and have been impeached, but for crimes they commit rather than decisions they issue. The day we impeach judges for their decisions, simply because YOU think they are wrong, is the day judges lose their independence.

Funny how those who disagree with you have an agenda, while those who agree are simply following the law.

Activist judges do not exceed their Constitutional authority and rebel against Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, "activist" judges just do not agree with you on what the Constitution means. What makes that disagreement treason?

So, the 'legal' explanation why judges are not impeached because of their decisions is very simple. Disagreement, even when disagreeable, is not illegal and not impeachable.

[anon]

I thought Louis Butler was known for absolutely following the law.

[Paul]

Is 'Roosevelt' stacking the court with sympathizers again?

Why can Congress (or someone)not eject federal judges who violate, fail to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States, their sacred and official obligation. (Obviously I'm not referring their imaginary and fake version of the document, upon which the Kagan's of the world "swear adherence")

How is it that these 'agendist' aren't ejected from the bench?

Activist judges exceed their Constitutional authority thus rebelling against authority of the Supreme Law of the Land. To me this is tantamount to High Treason, seriously! Its a serious crime.
These lawless judges are ruining this country.

Someone please give me the 'legal' explanation why this cannot be done (and quote the supporting U.S.Statute)

[Rick]

Hey Uncle Bill:

Are you concerned about conservative active justices who ignored 100 years of precedent and legislated from the bench in the "Citizens United" ruling?...Were you concerned with conservative judicial activism in Bush V. Gore?...Or is there no such thing as conservative judicial activism in your book...

I love how conservatives always cry the "liberal activist judges blues" yet in reality some of the most glaring examples of judicial activism (see first paragraph) are compliments of a conservative court...

[Uncle Bill]

So we should approve an activist judge to the 9th Circuit (known on the west coast by those it victimizes as either the "9th Circus" or the "9th Soviet")? This guy want to twist the 14th Amendment into setting a national school curriculum. As a tenured classroom professor with over 30 years experience teaching, I can tell you that letting bureaucrats and lawyers set the standards of teaching and curriculum content is the last stake in the heart of a free and liberal education in America. They have the neither the aptitude nor the experience for what he proposes. Gee, and that's only one law journal article.

[Carol L. Ziegler]

Our federal courts need a full house. It is long past time to fill these vacancies. I leave it up to the Senate leadership to figure out whether to go for the "controversial" nominees or all of them. But let's get it done.

[JonathanZ]

You can't get to a floor vote until you've passed a cloture vote.
What Democrats should do (if cloture fails) is force the Republicans to actually filibuster--use up floor time & come across as the obstructionists they have been.
Republicans have led the public to assume you need 60% to even enact any bill (or approve a nomination). Isn't so; supermajorities (needed to end filibusters) are but an exception to the normal simple majority ("51%"); help the public realize this (and maybe succeed in getting these nominations through in the process).

[Captain Kirk]

How about having votes (with or without use of "force") on all of the **uncontroversial** nominees (uh-duh)? How hard can that be? In case the Senate has forgotten, you put them on the calendar, you vote, and then you bang the gavel. Voila, new judges! See how simple that was?