The Wall Street Journal-20080201-Justice Delayed
Return to: The_Wall_Street_Journal-20080201
Justice Delayed
Full Text (803 words)If the presidential primaries are any indication, Americans of every political stripe are rejecting reflexive partisanship and instead asking Democrats and Republicans alike to reform Washington and deliver a government that works.
One of the most important responsibilities granted to the United States Senate by the Constitution is the confirmation of judicial nominees. It is also one of the areas that has been, for too long, infected by precisely the kind of partisan bickering that Americans are so clearly rejecting. It is time for us to call a truce in the partisan grudge match that has done such a disservice to judicial nominees, to the legal system, and to the Senate itself.
In 2007 (President Bush's second-to-last year in office), the Senate confirmed six circuit court nominees, nearly matching the seven nominees confirmed in President Clinton's second-to-last year in office. This is a fair start to the 110th Congress, but the Senate is still lagging behind in confirming circuit court nominees.
In President Clinton's final two years in office, the Senate confirmed 15 circuit court nominees; thus, much work remains to be done. There are currently 14 circuit court vacancies, with a nominee pending for nearly all of the seats. The Senate must confirm nine more circuit court nominees this year to keep pace with President Clinton's confirmations during his final two years in office.
It would be a shame if the preliminary steps the Senate Judiciary Committee took in 2007 were lost in 2008. To date, it has been four months since the committee held a hearing on a circuit court nomination. Several highly qualified candidates have been awaiting hearings for many months, and it is my hope that Chairman Patrick Leahy and I will be able to schedule prompt hearings for all of these fine men and women. At a bare minimum, nominees received from the president in 2007 deserve a committee hearing and a vote before the end of 2008.
While I believe that every nominee deserves a fair vote in committee, one nominee in particular deserves immediate attention.
Former Acting Attorney General Peter Keisler's nomination has been pending for over 580 days without a committee vote -- even though he had a hearing in August 2006. Mr. Keisler has excellent credentials. He has held several high level positions in the Department of Justice, most recently providing much needed leadership as Acting Attorney General following Alberto Gonzales's resignation. The American Bar Association has unanimously given Mr. Keisler its highest rating, "well qualified."
The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post editorialized in favor of his confirmation, calling him a "moderate conservative" and "highly qualified nominee" who "certainly warrants confirmation." The Senate Judiciary Committee has had more than a year and a half to review his exceptional record. I believe he should be confirmed as soon possible.
Judge Robert Conrad, nominated to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, should also be considered expeditiously. The seat to which Judge Conrad is nominated has been vacant for over 13 years, and the nonpartisan Administrative Office of the Courts has declared the vacancy a judicial emergency. While this seat remains vacant, the people of Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina are without a fully-functioning federal judiciary.
Judge Conrad also received the ABA's highest rating. He is ardently supported by both Senators in his home state, North Carolina. In the past six years, the Senate has twice voted unanimously to confirm him, first as a U.S. Attorney and then as a district court judge.
As a U.S. Attorney, Mr. Conrad tried a very significant cross- burning case in which he argued that a district judge had imposed an unacceptably lenient sentence. This type of sensitivity to civil rights is important in any judicial nominee, but particularly one nominated to a circuit with a high percentage of minority residents and a difficult history with respect to civil rights. Given all of these factors, Judge Conrad deserves a hearing at the soonest possible date.
Messrs. Keisler and Conrad represent just two of the many qualified individuals that the president has nominated. All deserve timely consideration by the Judiciary Committee and a vote on the Senate floor.
Some Senate Democrats oppose particular nominees because they feel some of President Clinton's nominees were treated unfairly. Perhaps they were. But we can make no progress in the Senate or in the nation if we keep talking about perceived wrongs and behaving like the feuding Hatfields and the McCoys. At some point, we simply have to turn the page.
In 2008 we will set important precedents for how the next president's nominees, whether Republican or Democrat, are treated in the Senate. Americans of both parties are demanding change; we should not wait until November to give it to them.
---
Mr. Specter is a Republican senator from Pennsylvania.
